Observational studyJournal of anesthesia2022
The relationship between years of anesthesia experience and first-time intubation success rate with direct laryngoscope and video laryngoscope in infants: a retrospective observational study.
Observational study in Journal of anesthesia, 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intubating laryngeal airway vs. direct laryngoscope: a crossover randomized controlled neonatal manikin trial.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2025Trial
- 90° versus 110° rotation of left double lumen tube for endobronchial intubation: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- McGRATHJournal of anesthesia · 2024Article
- The Clinical Usability Evaluation of an Attachable Video Laryngoscope in the Simulated Tracheal Intubation Scenario: A Manikin Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Video laryngoscopy as the standard of care for pediatric intubation-the time is now.Translational pediatrics · 2024Article
- Comparison of non-hypoxic apnea time in infants during induction of anesthesia with or without peep-A randomized controlled study.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeStudies in adults have reported that video laryngoscope is more useful than direct laryngoscope when training less experienced anesthesiologists. However, whether this is true for infants remains unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate whether the use of video laryngoscope would result in smaller differences in success rate according to anesthesiologists' expertise than those in direct laryngoscope.
methodsMedical records and video recordings from the operating room of patients aged < 1 year who underwent non-cardiac surgery between March 2019 and September 2021 were reviewed. Tracheal intubations between April 8, 2020, and June 20, 2021, were excluded due to the shortage of video laryngoscope blades during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rates of first-time tracheal intubation success were compared by years of anesthesia experience and initial intubation device.
resultsIn total, 125 of 175 tracheal intubations were analyzed (direct laryngoscope group, n = 72; video laryngoscope group, n = 53). The first-time tracheal intubation success rate increased with years of experience as an anesthesiologist in the direct laryngoscope group (odds ratio OR 1.70, 95% confidence interval CI 1.15, 2.49; P = 0.0070), but not the video laryngoscope group (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.74, 1.35; P = 0.99).
conclusionThe differences in success rate according to the anesthesiologists' years of experience were non-significant when using video laryngoscope in infants, compared to those in direct laryngoscope.
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.