Trial reportJournal of anesthesia2020
Comparison of the standard and triple airway maneuvering techniques for i-gel™ placement in patients undergoing elective surgery: a randomized controlled study.
Trial report in Journal of anesthesia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of the new non-inflatable laryngeal mask GMA-Tulip on airway management for lateral total hip arthroplasty in geriatric patients: a randomized controlled trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Trial
- Modified jaw thrust I-gel insertion technique in adults: a case series.Journal of medical case reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe i-gel is a supraglottic airway device with non-inflatable cuff which can suffer insertion failure if its standard placement technique is implemented. The aim of this study was to compare the placement technique proposed by the manufacturer of i-gel with the triple airway maneuver in terms of successful device insertion time and first-attempt success.
methodsAfter ethics committee approval, 103 ASA I-III patients were randomly allocated to the standard or triple airway maneuver groups. In the standard Group, the i-gel was inserted in the sniffing position while, in the triple group, it was inserted using the triple airway maneuver consisting of head tilt, jaw thrust, and open mouth. The time taken for successful insertion, first-attempt success rate, i-gel position, airway complications, and hemodynamic responses were assessed.
resultsBetween the two groups patient characteristics were similar. Time for successful insertion was significantly shorter in the triple group (20 ± 7 s) than with the standard technique (32 ± 11 s; p < 0.001). Successful insertion at the first attempt was 78% and 92% for the standard and triple group, respectively (p = 0.092). The i-gel position, airway complications, and hemodynamic responses were similar in both groups.
conclusionThe triple airway maneuver required less i-gel insertion time as compared with the standard placement technique. First-attempt success rates were similar with both techniques, although the triple airway maneuver was superior to the standard method as a rescue technique in failed insertions. We therefore recommend use of the triple airway maneuver in i-gel insertion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.