ArticleSaudi journal of anaesthesia
The VL3 videolaryngoscope for tracheal intubation in adults: A prospective pilot study.
Article in Saudi journal of anaesthesia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hyper-angulated (Glidescope) versus intermediate-angled (UED-A) videolaryngoscopy for routine tracheal intubation in adults: a prospective randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Comparison of direct and indirect images and hemodynamic response of two different video laryngoscopes to tracheal intubation.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Trial
- Article
- Comparison of Video Laryngoscope (VL) and Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway (I-LMA) for Endotracheal Intubation in a Manikin with Restricted Neck Motion.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Comment on a published article: The VL3 videolaryngoscope for tracheal intubation in adults: A prospective pilot study.Saudi journal of anaesthesiaArticle
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
backgroundVideolaryngoscopy (VLS) is recommended by international guidelines for the management of difficult airways. We conducted an observational prospective pilot study to assess the efficacy of the new VL3 videolaryngoscope for routine tracheal intubation (TI) in adults; in terms of success rate, the number of attempts, and maneuver duration, including both normal and difficult airways.
methodsThis prospective observational pilot study comprised a sample of 56 adult patients undergoing elective general anesthesia. For each patient, we performed VLS by VL3 recording the following data: successful TI rate, number of attempts, time of intubation, time to glottis visualization, Cormack-Lehane grade (CL), need for external laryngeal pressure, and presence of post-laryngoscopy side effects.
resultsTI was successfully carried out in the totality of patients. In only 4 out of 56 cases, the VL3 offered a CL II. The first attempt intubation was achieved in 48 patients (85.7%). In one case, external laryngeal pressure was needed. No CL III or CL IV were observed. We did not find any significant difference between the predicted difficult airways sample and the rest of the population.
conclusionVL3 videolaryngoscope showed to be an effective and safe device for routine TI, even in those patients with predicted difficult airway. More studies are needed to confirm our findings and verify its efficacy even in other settings.
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.