ArticleJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
Comparison of double lumen tube insertion using the McGrath MAC versus direct laryngoscopy in adult patients with a limited glottis view: A prospective interventional study.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Passage of double-lumen tubes (DLT) can be challenging in patients with limited glottis view. This study aims to determine the usefulness of McGrath® MAC videolaryngoscope (VL) in cases with limited glottis view on direct laryngoscopy with Macintosh blade. Material and Methods: After study approval and registration of trial, consent was sought from all adult patients planned for elective DLT insertion for lung isolation during the course of general anesthesia. Patients not consenting, less than 18 years, with anticipated difficult mask ventilation or need for rapid sequence induction were excluded. Following routine anesthetic induction, laryngoscopy was attempted by an experienced anesthesiologist using Macintosh scope. If the view obtained was Cormack and Lehane (CL) view IIB and above or the attempt at intubation using DLT failed despite a CL I/IIA view, the patient was included in the trial. The laryngoscope was removed and after ensuring adequate oxygenation and depth of anesthesia, intubation was attempted using McGrath® MAC VL. The percentage of glottis opening (POGO) score was noted for both the scopes. Results: DLT insertion was attempted in 76 patients in the study period. Eight patients were included in the trial on account of limited glottis view/failure with Macintosh scope. Insertion of DLT with McGrath MAC was tried only in six patients, in two patients, the VL was not available for use. The mean (standard deviation) POGO score with Macintosh scope was 9 (±20), which significantly improved with the use of VL to 71 (±24), Conclusion: McGrath MAC is helpful in inserting DLT in patients with limited glottis view with Macintosh scope.
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.