Trial reportBrazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)
Evaluation of lightwand-guided endotracheal intubation for patients with missing or no teeth: a randomized controlled study.
Trial report in Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safe Easy Endotracheal Kit-flexible-guided endotracheal intubation reduces stress response under general anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnhealthy teeth can seriously affect general health and increase the risk of death in elderly people. There has been no confirmation of which device is most effective for elderly patients with teeth loss. Therefore, we compared four intubation devices in elderly patients with partial and total tooth loss aiming to reduce risk during anesthesia.
methodsTwo hundred patients were randomized to undergo tracheal intubation with the Macintosh laryngoscope, the Glidescope, the Fiberoptic bronchoscope or the Lightwand as part of general anesthesia. A unified protocol of anesthetic medications was used. HR and BP were measured at T
resultsReduced fluctuations in HR, DBP, and SBP were observed in the Lightwand group. Intubation time was significantly shorter in the Lightwand group (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in epinephrine levels, but norepinephrine levels were less volatile in the Fiberoptic bronchoscope and Lightwand groups. Fewer patients in the Lightwand group experienced dental damage and other postoperative complications than in the other three groups. Although a higher success rate on the first attempt was as high as in the Fiberoptic bronchoscope group, shorter intubation time was observed only in the Lightwand group.
conclusionThe Lightwand offers less hemodynamic stimulation than the Macintosh laryngoscope, Glidescope, and Fiberoptic bronchoscope. Because it had the shortest intubation time, the Lightwand caused the least damage to the teeth and throat of elderly patients. Our findings showed that tracheal intubation with the Lightwand was advantageous for preventing cardiovascular stress responses with short intubation times and fewer postoperative complications.
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.