ArticleTurkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation2022
A Comparative Evaluation of 2 Videolaryngoscopes as an Intubation Aid in a Simulated Difficult Airway: A Prospective Randomised Study.
Article in Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Articulating Video Stylets in the Setting of Simulated Traumatic Cervical Spine Injury: A Comparison with Four Other Devices and Approaches to Endotracheal Intubation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Clinically Preferred Videolaryngoscopes in Airway Management: An Updated Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSeveral videolaryngoscopes have been developed for using in difficult airway. We conducted this study to evaluate the performance of McGrath® MAC and King Vision® videolaryngoscopes in a simulated difficult airway.
methodsThis prospective, randomised, comparative study was conducted in 140 surgical patients. Anaesthesia was administered as per standard protocol. A cervical collar was applied to simulate a difficult airway. Patients were randomised into 2 groups. In group M (n=70), laryngoscopy was performed first with King Vision® videolaryngoscope and second time with McGrath® MAC videolaryngoscope and trachea was intubated using the second device, while in group K (n=70), laryngoscopy was performed first with McGrath® MAC videolaryngoscope and second time with King Vision® videolaryngoscope and trachea was intubated using the second device. The laryngeal view, time taken for optimal laryngeal view, number of intubation attempts, ease of intubation, first attempt intubation success, time to tracheal intubation, haemodynamic parameters, and complications such as airway trauma, if any, were noted.
resultsTracheal intubation was faster with McGrath® MAC (34.89 ± 3.7 seconds) compared to King Vision® videolaryngoscope (43.43 ± 4.3 seconds, P <.001) with comparable first attempt intubation success by 100% vs 97.1%, P =.496, respectively. The laryngeal view obtained with both the devices was comparable but the mean time taken for optimal laryngeal view was significantly longer with King Vision® videolaryngoscope, both in group M (P <.001) and group K (P <.001). Ease of intubation and complications were comparable in the 2 groups.
conclusionMcGrath® MAC videolaryngoscope in comparison to King Vision® videolaryngoscope resulted in a shorter time taken for optimal laryngeal view and time to tracheal intubation with comparable first attempt intubation success.
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.