Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2020
Does the revised intubating laryngeal tube (ILTS-D2) perform better than the intubating laryngeal mask (Fastrach)? - a randomised simulation research study.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03542747 (Comparison of the Novel iLTS and Fastrach Intubation Laryngeal Mask for Time to Ventilation in a Simulated Airway.), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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.
Comparison of the Novel iLTS and Fastrach Intubation Laryngeal Mask for Time to Ventilation in a Simulated Airway.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- The comparison of endotracheal intubation and laryngeal tube insertion with face-to-face method in in-vehicle traffic accidents.Internal and emergency medicine · 2025Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe intubating laryngeal tube (ILTS-D™) and the intubating laryngeal mask (Fastrach™) are devices that facilitate both extraglottic application and blind tracheal intubation. A revised model of the iLTS-D (for scientific reasons called ILTS-D2) has been designed but not yet evaluated. Therefore, we compared the ILTS-D2 with the established Fastrach under controlled conditions in a prospective randomised controlled simulation research study.
methodsAfter ethical approval, we randomised 126 medical students into two groups. Each participant received either Fastrach or ILTS-D2 to perform five consecutive ventilation attempts in a manikin. The primary endpoint was the time to ventilation in the last attempt of using the devices as extraglottic devices. Secondary endpoints were the time to tracheal intubation and the success rates.
resultsThere was no relevant difference between the two devices in the time to ventilation in the last of five attempts (Fastrach: median 14 s [IQR: 12-15]; ILTS-D2: median 13 s [IQR: 12-15], p = 0.592). Secondary endpoints showed a 2 s faster blind tracheal intubation using the Fastrach than using the ILTS-D2 (Fastrach: median 14 s [IQR: 13-17]; ILTS-D2: median 16 s [IQR: 15-20] p < 0.001). For both devices, the success rates were 100% in the last attempt.
conclusionsConcerning extraglottic airway management, we could not detect a relevant difference between the revised ILTS-D2 and the Fastrach under laboratory conditions. We advocate for an evaluation of the ILTS-D2 in randomised controlled clinical trials.
trial registrationIdentifier at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03542747. May 31, 2018.
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.