Trial reportAnaesthesiology intensive therapy2021
Comparison of the Air-Q intubating laryngeal mask airway and the Ambu AuraGain laryngeal mask airway as a conduit for fibreoptic assisted endotracheal intubation for simulated cervical spine injury.
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. It is linked to trial NCT06914453 (A Comparative Study of Air-Q3 and Ambu AuraGain Supraglottic Airway Device in Patients Undergoing Elective Surgery Under General Anaesthesia), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
A Comparative Study of Air-Q3 and Ambu AuraGain Supraglottic Airway Device in Patients Undergoing Elective Surgery Under General Anaesthesia: A Randomised Controlled Trial
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- I-gel Plus acts as a superior conduit for fiberoptic intubation than standard i-gel.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- New Devices, Innovative Technologies, and Non-Standard Techniques for Airway Management: A Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Learning curve of fiberoptic bronchoscope-guided tracheal intubation through supraglottic airway device for pediatric airway management: a manikin study.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAirway management in patients with a cervical spine injury is a difficult and challenging task. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of the Air-Q intubating laryngeal airway and the Ambu AuraGain laryngeal mask airway as a conduit for fibreoptic (FO) assisted endotracheal intubation in adult patients with a simulated cervical spine injury. MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 66 adult patients underwent elective surgery under general anaes-thesia, and they were randomized to two groups: the Air-Q (AQ) group (n = 33) and the Ambu AuraGain (AA) group (n = 33). A simulated cervical spine injury was created using a cervical collar, which was applied after the induction of general anaesthesia. Ease of insertion, time taken for successful insertion, time taken for successful FO guided endotracheal intubation, oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP), Brimacombe score for FO laryngeal view, post-intubation complications and haemodynamic changes were recorded for both groups.
resultsThe OLP was significantly higher in the AA group than in the AQ group (34.9 ± 6.4 vs. 28.6 ± 7.8 cm H 2 O; P = 0.001). Otherwise, there were no significant differences in the ease of insertion, time taken for successful insertion, time taken for successful FO guided endotracheal intubation, Brimacombe score for FO laryngeal view, haemodynamic parameters or complication rate between the two groups.
conclusionsAir-Q was comparably effective as Ambu AuraGain as a conduit for FO endotracheal intubation in patients with a simulated cervical spine injury; however, Ambu AuraGain has a better seal with significant OLP.
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.