Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34295582›Full record

ArticleCureus2021

A Comparative Study of Airway Nerve Blocks and Atomized Lidocaine by the Laryngo-Tracheal Mucosal Atomization Device (LMA MADgic) Airway for Oral Awake Fiberoptic Intubation.

Urvashi Yadav, Atit Kumar, Priya Gupta

Registry-linked trialOpen access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05320731 (A Comparative Study Between Atomization and Nebulization for Airway Topicalization During Awake Nasotracheal Fiberoptic Intubation), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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.

NCT05320731 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

A Comparative Study Between Atomization and Nebulization for Airway Topicalization During Awake Nasotracheal Fiberoptic Intubation

TypeinterventionalSponsorZagazig UniversityRan2022 to 2024Enrolled150ConditionsAwake Fiberoptic IntubationArmsNebulization with lidocaine, Atomization with lidocaine
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Urvashi YadavAnesthesiology, Uttar Pradesh University of Medical Sciences, Etawah, IND.
Atit KumarAnesthesiology, Uttar Pradesh University of Medical Sciences, Etawah, IND.
Priya GuptaAnesthesiology, Uttar Pradesh University of Medical Sciences, Etawah, IND.
Adesh University · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Awake intubation is used most commonly in patients with a predicted difficult airway. There are situations where the safest method to secure an airway is to place an endotracheal tube in an awake and spontaneously breathing patient. Our aim was to compare the two modalities, airway nerve blocks and atomized lidocaine by the Laryngo-Tracheal Mucosal Atomization Device (LMA MADgic)airway for awake fiberoptic intubation (AFOI). Methods A total of 50 patients with anticipated difficult airway requiring AFOI were randomly allocated into two groups. Group A received airway blocks (bilateral superior laryngeal and transtracheal recurrent laryngeal nerve) each with 2 ml of 2% lidocaine and group B received airway anesthesia through atomized lidocaine by LMA MADgic using 10 ml of 2% lidocaine. Fiberoptic guided orotracheal intubation was then performed in both the groups using LMA MADgic as the conduit. The primary outcome measured was intubation time and the secondary outcome included quality of intubation, hemodynamic variables, and any adverse events. Results The intubation time was found to be significantly lower in Group A (63.80±7.86 seconds) as compared to Group B (184.96±13.38 seconds) (p=0.0001). The ease of intubation, intubating condition, and patient comfort were better in patients who received airway blocks. Group B had an increased number of coughing/gagging episodes as compared with Group A. Between the two groups, group A showed better hemodynamics and fewer episodes of desaturation than group B. Conclusion Upper airway nerve blocks provide faster intubation, adequate airway anesthesia, and less patient discomfort to aid in AFOI in patients with anticipated difficult airway as compared to topical anesthesia using an atomizer.

Indexed as

airwayconscious sedationfiber optic technologylocal anaesthesianerve block.

Identifiers

PMID34295582
PMCPMC8291090
OpenAlexW3176304498

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.