ArticleCureus2023
Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing the Success Rate of Blockbuster Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway Versus Fastrach Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway During Blind Endotracheal Intubation.
Article in Cureus, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
Background A new piece of equipment, the Blockbuster (BB) Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway (ILMA; Tuoren Medical India, Gurugram, India), was created in 2012. Dr. Chandy created the Fastrach (F) ILMA in 1997, which is another supraglottic airway equipment. The primary purpose of this study was to compare the success rate of intubation with BB-ILMA and F-ILMA. Methods In the chosen age category of >20 to <70 years, undergoing general anesthesia for intubation with ILMAs, 55 patients were in the BB-ILMA (group B), and 55 patients were in the F-ILMA (group F). These ILMAs were put in after the induction and checked to see if adequate ventilation was accomplished with either of these devices. Once ventilation had been attained, we proceeded with fiberoptic scope to visualize the glottis, followed by blind intubation. The primary objective was to compare the first pass successful intubation of BB-ILMA and F-ILMA. The secondary objectives were ease of LMA insertion, time taken for intubation, hemodynamic changes, glottis fiberoptic view, and complications. Results The first pass successful intubation of the BB-ILMA and F-ILMA are 94.5% and 87.3%, respectively, whereas the time taken for intubation in BB-ILMA and F-ILMA are 25.02 seconds (s) and 42.77 s with a p-value of 0.0001, indicating a statistically significant relationship. Conclusion When compared to the F-ILMA (group F), the BB-ILMA (group B) has a higher success rate for blind tracheal intubation, with lesser time taken for intubation and fewer complications.
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.