ArticleTurkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation2023
Comparison of Clinical Performance of C-MAC Video Laryngoscope Guided vs Blind Placement of I-Gel® in Paediatric Patients: A Randomized Controlled Open-Label Trial.
Article in Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reply to comments on "Comparative analysis of LMA Blockbuster® clinical performance: Blind versus Miller laryngoscope-guided insertion in paediatric general anaesthesia - A double-blinded, randomised controlled trial".Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of LMA BlockbusterIndian journal of anaesthesia · 2024Article
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Placement of the supraglottic airway devices under direct vision has been shown to decrease the incidence of malposition in adults. This study was designed to compare the clinical performance of C-MAC guided and blind placement of i-gel® in paediatric patients. Methods: The present prospective, randomized controlled study was conducted on 102 paediatric patients scheduled to undergo elective infraumbilical surgeries under general anaesthesia. Patients were randomly divided into group "B" (blind) and group "C" (C-MAC) based on the technique used for placement of i-gel®. The primary objective of the study was to compare the incidence of malposition based on the fiberoptic bronchoscope (FOB) score of the glottic view. Oropharyngeal leak pressure (OPLP), hemodynamic parameters, and insertion characteristics (time taken to insert and the number of attempts) were secondary objectives. Categorical data were presented as ratio or percentage and continuous data were presented as mean ± standard deviation or median [95% confidence interval (CI)]. Results: The incidence of malposition (Brimacombe score 1 or 2) was significantly lower in group C compared to group B (7.8% vs 49% respectively) ( Conclusion: Compared to blind placement, C-MAC guided placement ensures proper alignment of i-gel® with periglottic structures and proper functioning of i-gel®.
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.