ArticlePloS one2021
Comparison of Glidescope Core, C-MAC Miller and conventional Miller laryngoscope for difficult airway management by anesthetists with limited and extensive experience in a simulated Pierre Robin sequence: A randomized crossover manikin study.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Innovative Pediatric Simulator for Difficult Airway Management Training.IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2026Article
- A Comparison of Miller Straight Blade and Macintosh Blade Laryngoscopes for Intubation in Morbidly Obese Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Clinically Preferred Videolaryngoscopes in Airway Management: An Updated Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Evaluation of rescue techniques following failed laryngoscopy: A multicenter prospective observational study.Northern clinics of Istanbul · 2023Article
- Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVideo laryngoscopy is an effective tool in the management of difficult pediatric airway. However, evidence to guide the choice of the most appropriate video laryngoscope (VL) for airway management in pediatric patients with Pierre Robin syndrome (PRS) is insufficient. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of the Glidescope® Core™ with a hyperangulated blade, the C-MAC® with a nonangulated Miller blade (C-MAC® Miller) and a conventional Miller laryngoscope when used by anesthetists with limited and extensive experience in simulated Pierre Robin sequence.
methodsForty-three anesthetists with limited experience and forty-three anesthetists with extensive experience participated in our randomized crossover manikin trial. Each performed endotracheal intubation with the Glidescope® Core™ with a hyperangulated blade, the C-MAC® with a Miller blade and the conventional Miller laryngoscope. "Time to intubate" was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were "time to vocal cords", "time to ventilate", overall success rate, number of intubation attempts and optimization maneuvers, Cormack-Lehane score, severity of dental trauma and subjective impressions.
resultsBoth hyperangulated and nonangulated VLs provided superior intubation conditions. The Glidescope® Core™ enabled the best glottic view, caused the least dental trauma and significantly decreased the "time to vocal cords". However, the failure rate of intubation was 14% with the Glidescope® Core™, 4.7% with the Miller laryngoscope and only 2.3% with the C-MAC® Miller when used by anesthetists with extensive previous experience. In addition, the "time to intubate", the "time to ventilate" and the number of optimization maneuvers were significantly increased using the Glidescope® Core™. In the hands of anesthetists with limited previous experience, the failure rate was 11.6% with the Glidescope® Core™ and 7% with the Miller laryngoscope. Using the C-MAC® Miller, the overall success rate increased to 100%. No differences in the "time to intubate" or "time to ventilate" were observed.
conclusionsThe nonangulated C-MAC® Miller facilitated correct placement of the endotracheal tube and showed the highest overall success rate. Our results therefore suggest that the C-MAC® Miller could be beneficial and may contribute to increased safety in the airway management of infants with PRS when used by anesthetists with limited and extensive experience.
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.