Trial reportKorean journal of anesthesiology2022
Video laryngoscope versus USB borescope-aided endotracheal intubation in adults with anticipated difficult airway: a prospective randomized controlled study.
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. 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Video laryngoscope versus disposcope endoscope for anticipated laryngeal tumor related difficult intubation in patients undergoing general anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Trial
- Cadaveric evaluation of bronchial blockade using the Coda vascular catheter placed under Borescope guidance.Veterinary surgery : VS · 2025Article
- The golden era of videolaryngoscopy: costs we should consider.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVideo laryngoscopes are approved equipment for difficult airway intubations. The borescope, which was introduced during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) era, is placed over a direct laryngoscope blade to provide an economical video laryngoscope. In the current study, we investigated the use of an endotracheal tube mounted over a USB borescope versus a video laryngoscope in patients with suspected difficult airways.
methodsAfter obtaining informed consent, 120 adult patients with suspected difficult airways undergoing elective surgery were included in this study. Patients were randomized into the USB borescope and video laryngoscope groups. The primary outcome was time to successful intubation. The secondary outcomes included hemodynamic changes, anesthetist's satisfaction, and the incidence of complications.
resultsIntubation time was comparable between the two groups (video laryngoscope: 30.63 s and borescope: 28.35 s; P = 0.166). However, the view was clearer (P = 0.026) and the incidence of fogging was lower (P = 0.015) with the video laryngoscope compared to the borescope. Conversely, anesthetist's satisfaction frequency was higher with the borescope than with the video laryngoscope (P < 0.001).
conclusionsThe video laryngoscope provided a better view and less fogging with an intubation time that was comparable to that of the borescope; however, the higher cost of the video laryngoscope limits its availability. Therefore, the borescope is a low-cost, readily available device that can be used for intubating patients with potentially difficult airways.
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.