Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33559686›Full record

Trial reportDer Anaesthesist2021

Guided vs. non-guided insertion of Ambu AuraGain™ in edentulous patients.

Lukas Gasteiger, Helmuth Tauber, Corinna Velik-Salchner, Matthias Thoma, Raffaella Fantin, Vitaliy Pustilnik, Sabrina Neururer, Christian Keller, Berthold Moser

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Der Anaesthesist, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 49% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Evaluation of the New SingularityJournal of clinical medicine · 2022
    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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Lukas GasteigerDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, Anichstraße 35, A-6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Helmuth TauberDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, Anichstraße 35, A-6020, Innsbruck, Austria. Helmuth.tauber@tirol-kliniken.at.
Corinna Velik-SalchnerDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, Anichstraße 35, A-6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Matthias ThomaDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, Anichstraße 35, A-6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Raffaella FantinDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, Anichstraße 35, A-6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Vitaliy PustilnikDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, Anichstraße 35, A-6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Sabrina NeururerDepartment of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Health Economics, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Christian KellerDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Schulthess Klinik, Schulthess, Switzerland.
Berthold MoserDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Spital Limmattal, Zurich, Switzerland.
Innsbruck Medical University · ATSchulthess-Klinik · CHSpital Limmattal · CHUniversität Innsbruck · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSupraglottic airway devices perform more poorly and have lower oropharyngeal leak pressure in edentulous patients than in patients with teeth. The Ambu Aura Gain is a newer second generation supraglottic airway device.

objectiveThis randomized clinical trial assessed the oropharyngeal leak pressure in edentulous patients using the Ambu Aura Gain with a gastric tube for insertion guidance and without insertion guidance. MATERIAL AND

methodsPatients with ASA (American Society of Anesthesiology) physical status I-III were recruited. Primary outcome was oropharyngeal leak pressure after insertion. Secondary outcome parameters were oropharyngeal leak pressure 15 min and 30 min after insertion, insertion time, insertion attempts and glottis view through flexible fiberscope.

resultsIn this study 72 patients aged between 51 and 90 years (mean 73 years) were randomly allocated to the "with guidance" (n = 36) or the "without guidance" group (n = 36). Mean (SD) oropharyngeal leak pressure in "with guidance" and "without guidance" group was 24 cm H

conclusionA guided insertion technique does not improve oropharyngeal leak pressure of the Ambu AuraGain™ in edentulous patients. As the only difference is an increase in insertion time this technique is of no benefit for this population.

Indexed as

EpilepsyLaryngeal MasksAgedAged, 80 and overAirway ManagementHumansIntubation, IntratrachealMiddle AgedOropharynxDental prosthesisDifficult airwayDifficult airway managementEdentulousLaryngeal mask airway

Identifiers

PMID33559686
OpenAlexW3126769937

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.