Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34673744›Full record

Trial reportKorean journal of anesthesiology2022

Comparison of the clinical performance of the i-gelTM, LMA SupremeTM, and Ambu AuraGainTM in adult patients during general anesthesia: a prospective and randomized study.

Tejashri Chinthavali Lakshmi, Tanmay Tiwari, Jyotsna Agrawal, Rajni Kapoor, Vikrannth Vasanthakumar

RetractedOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialRetracted Publication
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Korean journal of anesthesiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tejashri Chinthavali LakshmiDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, India.
Tanmay TiwariDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, India.
Jyotsna AgrawalDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, India.
Rajni KapoorDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, India.
Vikrannth VasanthakumarDepartment of General Medicine, Saveetha Medical College and Hospital, Chennai, India.
King George's Medical University · INSaveetha University · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSupraglottic airway devices (SADs) are routinely used for securing the airway. In this study, the clinical performance of three SADs in adult patients under general anesthesia was compared.

methodsAmerican Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-III subjects were randomly assigned to the i-gelTM (I), LMA SupremeTM (L), or Ambu AuraGainTM (A) group (30 per group). The primary objective of this study was to compare insertion times. Additionally, the ease of insertion, number of attempts, oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP), airway maneuver requirement, difficulty with gastric tube placement, and complications were assessed.

resultsDemographic data did not differ between the groups. Group I (16.9 ± 4.9 s) had a significantly shorter time of insertion than Group L (19.6 ± 5.2 s) and Group A (22.1 ± 5.7 s) (P = 0.001). The OLP for Group A (29.8 ± 3.0 cmH2O) was higher than those for Group L (24.1 ± 6.3 cmH2O) and Group I (9.4 ± 6.1 cmH2O) (P < 0.001). The number of insertion attempts (P = 0.232), ease of insertion (P = 0.630), airway maneuver requirement (P = 0.585), difficulty with gastric tube placement (P = 0.364), and complications (P = 0.873) were not significantly different between the groups.

conclusionsAll three devices are convenient and effective for airway management in adults under general anesthesia. However, the shorter insertion time required for the i-gel may make it more suitable for resuscitation and emergencies, while aspiration risk may be reduced with the Ambu AuraGain, given its high OLP.

Indexed as

Laryngeal MasksAdultAirway ManagementAnesthesia, GeneralHumansOropharynxProspective StudiesAirway managementGeneral anesthesiaI-GelLaryngeal masks airwaySupraglottic devicesVentilation

Identifiers

PMID34673744
PMCPMC9346280
OpenAlexW3205885047

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.