ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2022
Comparison of Airtraq DL™ and Macintosh laryngoscope for double-lumen tube placement in simulated difficult airway: A randomised study.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Comparison of Conventional Rotating Method and Non-Rotating Method for Double-Lumen Tube Insertion Using a Customized Rigid J-Shaped Stylet for One-Lung Ventilation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Risk of bias in published randomised controlled trials.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2023Article
- Trends in research inIndian journal of anaesthesia · 2023Article
- Healthcare research data sharing and academic journal: A challenging but fruitful initiative.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2023Article
- Thrust on airway research - Exploring the publications.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2023Article
- Simulation-based airway research: The fast-track recipes?Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: The Airtraq DL ™ is a prototype channeled video laryngoscope, designed specifically for endobronchial intubation with a double-lumen tube (DLT). Evidence on its superiority over Macintosh laryngoscope for DLT placement in the difficult airway is limited. This study compared the efficacy of both these laryngoscopes in the simulated difficult airway. Methods: A prospective randomised controlled study was conducted on 52 patients undergoing elective thoracic surgery with lung isolation using a left-sided DLT. The patients were randomised into Airtraq DL ™ group (group A) and Macintosh group (group M). The primary objective was to compare the time required for intubation, and the secondary objectives were to evaluate time to best glottic view, Cormack-Lehane (CL) grading, intubation difficulty score (IDS), manoeuvres, attempts at intubation, haemodynamic response and complications. Operating anaesthesiologists were also asked to grade the ease of laryngoscopy and intubation for both devices on a 4-point Likert scale. Results: The mean time to intubation was found to be lesser in group A than in group M (18 ± 6.91 s vs 25.48 ± 9.47 s, Conclusion: The Airtraq DL ™ is superior to Macintosh laryngoscope as it requires lesser time for intubation and provides favourable intubating conditions (better CL grading, lesser manoeuvres, lower IDS and improved Likert scales) for double-lumen placement in the simulated difficult airway.
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.