Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33407130›Full record

Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2021

A comparison of laryngeal mask airway-supreme and endotracheal tube use with respect to airway protection in patients undergoing septoplasty: a randomized, single-blind, controlled clinical trial.

Erol Karaaslan, Sedat Akbas, Ahmet Selim Ozkan, Cemil Colak, Zekine Begec

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03903679 nacompletednot on this map

Is Endotracheal Tube Use Mandatory in Patients Undergoing Nasal Septum Surgery? Randomized, Controlled, Prospective Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorInonu UniversityRan2019 to 2019Enrolled80ConditionsAirway Aspiration, Airway Complication of AnesthesiaArmsLaryngeal mask airway, Endotracheal tube
NCT06950957 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Comparison of Video Laryngeal Mask Airway and Endotracheal Tube Use for Airway Safety in Patients Undergoing Septoplasty

TypeobservationalSponsorSamsun UniversityRan2025 to 2025Enrolled64ConditionsAirway Complication of Anesthesia, Anesthesia Intubation Complication, SeptoplastyArmsVideo Laryngeal Mask Airway (VLMA), Endotracheal Tube (ETT)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Erol KaraaslanDepartment of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Inonu University Medical Faculty, Malatya, Turkey. erkara44@hotmail.com.
Sedat AkbasDepartment of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Inonu University Medical Faculty, Malatya, Turkey.
Ahmet Selim OzkanDepartment of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Inonu University Medical Faculty, Malatya, Turkey.
Cemil ColakDepartment of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, Inonu University Medical Faculty, Malatya, Turkey.
Zekine BegecDepartment of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Inonu University Medical Faculty, Malatya, Turkey.
Inonu University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are doubts among anesthesiologists on the use of the Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) in nasal surgeries because of concerns about the occurrence of blood leakages to the airway. We hypothesized that the use of LMA-Supreme (LMA-S) in nasal surgery is comparable with endotracheal tube (ETT) according to airway protection against blood leakage through the fiberoptic bronchoscopy, oropharyngeal leakage pressure (OLP), heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and postoperative adverse events.

methodsThe present study was conducted in a prospective, randomized, single-blind, controlled manner on 80 patients, who underwent septoplasty procedures under general anesthesia, after dividing them randomly into two groups according to the device used (LMA-S or ETT). The presence of blood in the airway (glottis/trachea, distal trachea) was analyzed with the fiberoptic bronchoscope and a four-point scale. Both groups were evaluated for OLP; HR; MAP; postoperative sore throat, nausea, and vomiting; dysphagia; and dysphonia.

resultsIn the fiberoptic evaluation of the airway postoperatively, less blood leakage was detected in both anatomic areas in the LMA-S group than in the ETT group (glottis/trachea, p = 0.004; distal trachea, p = 0.034). Sore throat was detected less frequently in the LMA-S group at a significant level in the 2nd, 6th, and 12th hours of postoperative period; however, other adverse events were similar in both groups. Hemodynamic parameters were not different between the two groups.

conclusionThe present findings demonstrate that the LMA-S provided more effective airway protection than the ETT in preventing blood leakage in the septoplasty procedures. We believe that the LMA-S can be used safely and as an alternative to the ETT in septoplasty cases.

trial registrationThis trial is registered at the US National Institutes of Health ( ClinicalTrials.gov ) # NCT03903679 on April 5, 2019.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedFemaleHoarsenessHumansIntubation, IntratrachealLaryngeal MasksMaleMiddle AgedNasal SeptumPharyngitisPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesRespiration DisordersSingle-Blind MethodAirway protectionFiberoptic bronchoscopyLMA supremeSeptoplastySore throat

Identifiers

PMID33407130
PMCPMC7789562
OpenAlexW3119902645

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.