Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33776088›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2021

Comparison of aerosol box intubation with C-MAC video laryngoscope and direct laryngoscopy-A randomised controlled trial.

Nitu Puthenveettil, Sajan Rahman, Sundeep Vijayaraghavan, Sneha Suresh, Dilesh Kadapamannil, Jerry Paul

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

6 authors.

Nitu PuthenveettilDepartment of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Department of Plastic Surgery, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala, India.
Sajan RahmanDepartment of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Department of Plastic Surgery, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala, India.
Sundeep VijayaraghavanDepartment of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Department of Plastic Surgery, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala, India.
Sneha SureshDepartment of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Department of Plastic Surgery, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala, India.
Dilesh KadapamannilDepartment of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Department of Plastic Surgery, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala, India.
Jerry PaulDepartment of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Department of Plastic Surgery, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsSevere acute respiratory syndrome corona virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a highly infectious disease and healthcare workers are at constant risk for contracting it. Nowadays, aerosol box is used in conjunction with WHO-recommended safety kits, to avoid health workers from getting SARS-CoV-2 infection during aerosol-generating procedures. In our study, we compared the ease of oral intubation with C-MAC video laryngoscope and direct laryngoscopy, when the aerosol box was used. The secondary objectives were to compare the incidence of airway loss, haemodynamic changes, number of attempts, and time required for intubation between these two techniques.

methodsThis prospective randomised controlled study was conducted on 60 non-coronavirus disease (COVID) patients presenting for elective surgery under general anaesthesia. Patients were randomly assigned into two groups:C and D using a computer-generated random sequence of numbers by closed envelope technique. In group D, laryngoscopy was performed with Macintosh blade and in group C, with Storz® C-MAC video laryngoscope.

resultsThe ease of intubation was better (grade 1) in group C than D (68.6% vs. 31.4% respectively) with a

conclusionThe use of C-MAC video-laryngoscopy resulted in easier orotracheal intubation as compared to intubation with direct laryngoscopy when the aerosol box was used.

Indexed as

Aerosolinfectionintubationlaryngoscopysevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)

Identifiers

PMID33776088
PMCPMC7983824

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.