ArticleTurkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation2020
Gnana Laryngeal Airway in Clinical Practice: A Prospective Observational Study.
Article in Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe Gnana Laryngeal Airway (GLA) device, a novel supraglottic airway device, is similar to the LMA-Classic in basic design, but with an additional suction port on the convex portion of the laryngeal mask to remove the saliva. We evaluated the GLA device in terms of ease and time to insertion, the number of attempts, oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP), correct placement, and complications in adult patients undergoing elective surgical procedures.
methodsAfter general anaesthesia, the GLA device was inserted in ASA Class I-II consecutive patients aged 18-60 years, who were scheduled for elective surgeries lasting <2h. An independent observer noted (1) 10 consecutive successful GLA device insertions, all on the first attempt; (2) 10 consecutive device insertions, each <20 second in duration; and (3) 10 consecutive patients with the mean leak <10%. The criteria were fulfilled in 50 consecutive patients.
resultsIn 72% of patients, the GLA device was successfully placed on the first attempt and was effortless in 64%. Between the first 10 and last 10 consecutive patients of the total 50, the ease-of-insertion grade progressively decreased (mean±standard deviation [SD]: 2.80±0.25 to 1.30±0.15, p<0.0001) and so did insertion time in seconds (28.70±1.87 to 14.20±0.79, p<0.0001). The post-insertion, OLP and airway compliance progressively increased, while the cuff inflation volume, peak airway pressure and airway resistance progressively decreased, along with minimal side effects and malposition.
conclusionThe GLA device insertion became progressively easier and faster; thus, such a device is promising and warrants further clinical evaluation.
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.