ArticleNorthern clinics of Istanbul2023
Evaluation of rescue techniques following failed laryngoscopy: A multicenter prospective observational study.
Article in Northern clinics of Istanbul, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Supraglottic airway devices in awake tracheal intubation: a viable alternative to fiberoptic and video laryngoscopy.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Observational
- The utilization of video laryngoscopy in nasotracheal intubation for oral and maxillofacial surgical procedures: a narrative review.Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2024Review
- Endotracheal Intubation of Difficult Airways in Emergency Settings: A Guide for Innovators.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe Fourth National Audit Project revealed that severe airway complications occur in the frequency of 1/22,000. Various rescue techniques were recommended in difficult airway guidelines. This study aims to evaluate the rescue techniques following failed direct laryngoscopy and analyze the success rates and potential complications during difficult airway management.
methodsThis was a multicenter and prospective observational study carried out in four referral centers. Four academic university hospitals using fiberoptic bronchoscopy and videolaryngoscopy in their daily practice were included in the study. Patients undergoing general anesthesia with anticipated or unanticipated difficult intubation were enrolled. The preferred rescue technique and the attempts for both direct and indirect laryngoscopies were recorded.
resultsAt the mean age of 46.58±21.19 years, 92 patients were analyzed. The most common rescue technique was videolaryngoscopy following failed direct laryngoscopy. Glidescope was the most preferred videolaryngoscope. Anesthesia residents performed most of the first tracheal intubation attempts, whereas anesthesia specialists performed the second attempts at all centers. The experience of the first performer as a resident was significantly higher in the anticipated difficult airway group (4.0±5.5 years) (p=0.045). The number of attempts with the first rescue technique was 2.0±2.0 and 1.0±1.0 in the unanticipated difficult airway and anticipated difficult airway groups, respectively (p=0.004).
conclusionVideolaryngoscopy was a more commonly preferred technique for both anticipated and unanticipated difficult intubations. Glidescope was the most used rescue device in difficult intubations after failed direct laryngoscopy, with a high success rate.
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.