ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2020
A prospective randomised trial to compare three insertion techniques for i-gel™ placement: Standard, reverse, and rotation.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05545163 (Comparison of Simulated Standard Versus Modified Jaw Thrust I-gel Insertion Technique in Novice Anesthesiologists), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 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 Simulated Standard Versus Modified Jaw Thrust I-gel Insertion Technique in Novice Anesthesiologists: A Randomised Control Crossover Trial
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Standard digit-based versus 90° rotation technique for supraglottic airway device insertion: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2022Pooled it
- Comparison of rotational and standard methods of i-gel® insertion in patients of advanced age undergoing general anesthesia: a randomized clinical trial.The Journal of international medical research · 2022Trial
- Comparison of four different techniques of i-gel insertion by anaesthesia trainees in children undergoing daycare surgery: A single-blind, randomised, comparative study.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2023Article
- Conventional versus reverse insertion of i-gel® in overweight and obese patients - Interventional randomised controlled trial.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2023Article
- Modified jaw thrust I-gel insertion technique in adults: a case series.Journal of medical case reports · 2022Article
- The ten essential "T's" imparting impetus to research in anaesthesiology.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsThis prospective randomised study was done to compare standard, reverse, and rotation techniques of i-gel™ placement in terms of insertion characteristics and success rate. MATERIAL AND
methodsAfter institutional ethics committee approval, 135 patients aged 18-50 years, ASA I and II undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia were included. After induction of anesthesia, i-gel™ was inserted by standard, reverse, and rotation technique in Groups I, II, and III, respectively. The primary objective was mean time of insertion. Secondary variables included ease of insertion, first attempt success rate, manoeuvres required, fiberoptic view of placement, oropharyngeal leak pressure, ease of placement of nasogastric tube, and complications if any.
resultsMean time of insertion was 18.04 ± 5.65 s, 15.00 ± 5.72 s and 16.12 ± 5.84 s for groups I, II, and III, respectively. Time taken for insertion was shortest and significantly lower (
conclusionAll techniques of i-gel insertion are equally good and choice of technique depends upon the experience and comfort of the investigator with the particular technique.
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.