Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2021
AutoFlow® versus volume-controlled ventilation for laparoscopic gynecological surgery using LMA® ProSeal™: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06527352 (Comparison of Risk of Gastroesophageal Reflux During General Anesthesia With Tulip vs GMA), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Comparison of Risk of Gastroesophageal Reflux During General Anesthesia With Tulip vs GMA(Glottis Mask Airway) Airway
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of pressure -regulated volume control vs volume -controlled ventilation on respiratory mechanics in pediatric laparoscopic surgery: a randomized controlled trial.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2026Article
- Influence of endotracheal tube and laryngeal mask airway for general anesthesia on perioperative adverse events in patients undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy: A propensity score-matched analysis.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 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
backgroundDuring laparoscopic gynecological surgery, increased peak airway pressure (PAWP) can cause airway leak upon ventilation with the LMA® ProSeal™. We hypothesized that compared with the use of volume-controlled ventilation (VCV), the use of the AutoFlow® mode would decrease PAWP and airway leak during laparoscopic gynecological surgery with LMA ProSeal.
methodsThis single-center, randomized, controlled trial allocated 80 adult women undergoing elective laparoscopic gynecological surgery to one of two groups, namely, the AutoFlow group or the VCV group. Ventilation settings for both groups were 8 ml/kg of tidal volume and 5 cmH
resultsData from 40 patients in the AutoFlow group and 39 in the VCV group were used for analysis. PAWP at pneumoperitoneum pressure and in the Trendelenburg position was significantly lower in the AutoFlow group than in the VCV group [median (interquartile range), 16 (15-18) cmH
conclusionsEven though AutoFlow ventilation decreased PAWP, it did not reduce the incidence of airway leak compared with VCV during laparoscopic gynecological surgery with the LMA ProSeal.
trial registrationUMIN Clinical Trials Registry, identifier UMIN000023173 .
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.