ArticleJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
A randomized comparative study of three supraglottic airway devices for controlled ventilation in anesthetized patients.
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 3 papers, 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Choice of supraglottic airway devices: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.British journal of anaesthesia · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluation of the SaCoVLM, a novel third-generation video laryngeal mask: a prospective observational pilot study.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Observational
- Supraglottic airway devices: More devices and research required?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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: The LMA® ProSeal™, LMA® Supreme™ and Ambu® AuraGain™ are second-generation supraglottic airway devices (SADs) with integrated gastric access. In this study, we compared the clinical performance of these three devices in adults for controlled ventilation in anesthetized paralysed patients. Material and Methods: Two hundred and seventy adults, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status I-III, undergoing elective surgical procedures, were randomized into three groups with 90 patients in each: Group 1: LMA® ProSeal™, Group 2: LMA® Supreme™ and Group 3: Ambu® AuraGain™. All the three devices were evaluated for oropharyngeal seal pressure (OSP) and other parameters: ease and the number of attempts at device placement, fibreoptic laryngeal view and intraoperative and postoperative complications. Results: In the present study, the mean OSP was 38.9 ± 3.050 cm H Conclusion: In this study, we found that the LMA® ProSeal™ provided the highest OSP in comparison to the other two devices, even though this difference is not clinically relevant. The use of Ambu® AuraGain™ was associated with difficult and lowest first-time insertion success rate (P < 0.001) along with an increased incidence of airway trauma as compared to the other two SADs.
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.