ArticleJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
Comparative evaluation of glidescope videolaryngosocope and conventional macintosh laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation in patients undergoing oropharyngeal cancer surgeries: A prospective randomized study.
Article in Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of indirect versus direct laryngoscopes for nasotracheal intubation in adults undergoing elective surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Nasotracheal intubation in oropharyngeal cancer patients is challenging owing to anatomical alterations. Various videolaryngoscopes have been compared to conventional laryngoscope and also amongst each other in different clinical scenarios; the supremacy of videolaryngoscopes over conventional laryngoscope in oropharyngeal cancer patients is yet to be established. We compared the efficacy of glidescope videolaryngoscopes and Macintosh laryngoscope for nasotracheal intubation in patients posted for routine oropharyngeal cancer. Material and Methods: 120 ASA I and II oropharyngeal cancer patients scheduled for elective surgery were randomized to undergo nasotracheal intubation after induction of general anesthesia with glide scope video laryngoscope (Group GVL, N = 60) or Macintosh laryngoscope (Group L, N = 60) as per group allocation. Time to glottic view, total intubation time (primary objective), hemodynamic fluctuations, and additional manoeuvres to aid intubation were recorded. Results: Time to visualize the glottic opening (9.20 ± 4.6 sec vs 14.8 ± 6.3 sec) ( Conclusion: Glidescope videolaryngosocpe is better than conventional Macintosh laryngoscope for intubation times and need of manoeuvres to facilitate intubation and should be a preferred device for NTI in patients with oropharyngeal cancer.
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.