ArticleAnesthesia and pain medicine2020
Clinical performance of Ambu AuraGain
Article in Anesthesia and pain medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04482166 (Learning Curve of Fiberoptic-guided Tracheal Intubation Through Supraglottic Airway Device for Pediatric Difficult Airway Manikin), which is not on this 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.
Learning Curve of Fiberoptic-guided Tracheal Intubation Through Supraglottic Airway Device for Pediatric Difficult Airway Manikin
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Learning curve of fiberoptic bronchoscope-guided tracheal intubation through supraglottic airway device for pediatric airway management: a manikin study.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2023Article
- Comparison of Brimacombe score and first-attempt success rate of intubation through Ambu AuraGain and i-gel in anaesthetized adult patients: A prospective open-label study.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
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
backgroundAmbu AuraGain and i-gel have different characteristics in design each other. However, few reports evaluate which device has more benefits for ventilation in children undergoing paralyzed general anesthesia. This prospective, randomized controlled trial compared the clinical performance AuraGain and i-gel in anesthetized children.
methodsChildren aged between 1 month and 7 years undergoing elective surgery were randomly assigned to the AuraGain and i-gel groups. The primary outcome was initial oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP). Secondary outcomes were OLP at 10 min post-insertion, first-attempt and total insertion success rates, number of attempts and ease of gastric suction catheter placement, peak inspiratory pressure, fiberoptic bronchoscopic view score, ventilation quality, requirement of additional manipulation post-insertion, and complications.
resultsData of 93 patients were analyzed. The initial OLPs of the AuraGain and i-gel were 27.5 ± 7.7 and 25.0 ± 8.0 cmH
conclusionsOLP is comparable between AuraGain and i-gel. The AuraGain would be more favorable than the i-gel
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.