Trial reportAnaesthesiology intensive therapy2021
A comparative study of haemodynamic effects of single-blinded orotracheal intubations with intubating laryngeal mask airway, Macintosh and McGrath video laryngoscopes.
Trial report in Anaesthesiology intensive therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparison of McGrath video laryngoscope versus macintosh laryngoscope for intubation undergoing general anesthesia: a meta-analysis.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Pooled it
- Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adults undergoing tracheal intubation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Comparing the Effectiveness and Safety of MedAn with the Nishikawa Blade and UE Videolaryngoscopes for Left-Sided Double-Lumen Endobronchial Tube Intubation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2023Trial
- Effect of Carbohydrate-Enriched Drink Compared to Fasting on Hemodynamics in Healthy Volunteers. A Randomized Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe efficacy of an intubation technique is crucial to the success of ventilation therapies. Intubating laryngeal mask airway (ILMA), Macintosh and McGrath techniques are yet to be evaluated thoroughly. Orotracheal intubations with ILMA, McGrath, and Macintosh laryngoscopes are compared based on haemodynamic changes, time taken for intubations, and success rate. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis is a prospective, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial. Primary outcome: identification of the most efficient intubation technique. Secondary outcomes: haemodynamic parameters, time taken for intubation and the rate of success of intubation. Patients enrolled: 90. Groups: 3. Each participant is randomly assigned to a group. Inclusion criteria: both sexes, age: 18-55 years, ASA: I or II, Mallampati < III, Mouth opening > 2 fingers, BMI < 40 kg m-2, any elective surgery, general anaesthesia requiring endotracheal intubation. The haemodynamic changes, time taken for intubations, and success rate during ILMA, Macintosh and McGrath intubations were recorded and statistically analysed.
resultsMacintosh and ILMA raised the heart rate (min-1) more than McGrath at the second minute (95% CI: 76.50 ± 1.34 [McGrath] < 81.73 ± 1.46 [Macintosh] < 90.42 ± 1.24 [ILMA]). ILMA required the longest intubation time (s) (95% CI: 71.64 ± 2.14 [ILMA] > 40.26 ± 1.36 [McGrath] > 30.63 ± 1.53 [Macintosh]). Macintosh and McGrath intubations were all successful, whereas ILMA recorded two failures. However, the observed failures were statistically insignificant (95% CI: 93.33 ± 4.35%).
conclusionsMcGrath intubation is the most efficient technique based on its haemodynamics. ILMA required the longest intubation time and statistically, rates of success of the techniques are alike.
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.