Trial reportPloS one2020
Learning curve and performance in simulated difficult airway for the novel C-MAC® video-stylet and C-MAC® Macintosh video laryngoscope: A prospective randomized manikin trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hemodynamic Response to Laryngoscopy and Endotracheal Intubation With Conventional Macintosh Laryngoscope Versus C-MAC Video Laryngoscope in Patients Undergoing Elective Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Anesthesiology research and practice · 2026Article
- Comparison study of LANJA, UE, and VDO video laryngoscopes for simulated endotracheal intubation in beginners.Medicine · 2025Article
- Topical Anaesthesia Using a Soft Mist Spray Device Allows Comfortable Awake Visualisation of the Airway via Self-Videolaryngoscopy in Volunteers.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Simulation in airway management teaching and training.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2024Article
- Learning curve for flexible bronchoscope-guided orotracheal intubation for anesthesiology residents: A cumulative sum analysis.PloS one · 2023Article
- The Use of the Shikani Video-Assisted Intubating Stylet Technique in Patients with Restricted Neck Mobility.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Simulation-based airway research: The fast-track recipes?Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2022Article
- Development of endotracheal intubation devices for patients with tumors.American journal of cancer research · 2022Review
- Successful intubation with a flexible optical stylet in a patient with predictors of difficult airway using pharyngeal clearance technique with a laryngoscope: A case report.Medicine internationalArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Difficult airways can be managed with a range of devices, with video laryngoscopes (VLs) being the most common. The C-MAC® Video-Stylet (VS; Karl-Storz Germany), a hybrid between a flexible and a rigid intubation endoscope, has been recently introduced. The aim of this study is to investigate the performance of the VS compared to a VL (C-MAC Macintosh blade, Karl-Storz Germany) with regards to the learning curve for each device and its ability to manage a simulated difficult airway manikin. This is a single-center, prospective, randomized, crossover study involving twenty-one anesthesia residents performing intubations on a Bill 1™ (VBM, Germany) airway manikin model. After a standardized introduction, six randomized attempts with VL and VS were performed on the manikin. This was followed by intubation in a simulated difficult airway (cervical collar and inflated tongue) with both devices in a randomized fashion. The primary end-point of this study was the total time to intubation. All continuous variables were expressed as the median [interquartile range] and analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test. A 2-way ANOVA with Bonferroni's post hoc test was used to compare both devices at each trial. All reported p values are two sided. The median total time to intubation on a simulated difficult airway was faster with the VS compared to VL (17 [13.5-25] sec vs 23 [18.5-26.5] sec, respectively; 95% CI; P = 0.031). Additionally, on a normal airway manikin, the VS has a comparable learning curve to the VL. In this manikin-based study, the novel VS was comparable to the VL in terms of learning curve in a normal airway. In a simulated difficult airway, the total time to intubation, though likely not clinically relevant, was faster with the VS to the VL. However, given the above findings, this study justifies further human clinical trials with the VS to see if similar benefits-faster time to intubation and similar learning curve to VL-are replicated clinically.
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.