ArticleNPJ microgravity2023
Evaluation of free-floating tracheal intubation in weightlessness via ice-pick position with a direct laryngoscopy and classic approach with indirect videolaryngoscopy.
Article in NPJ microgravity, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05303948 (Evaluation and Comparison of Two Positions for Free Floating Tracheal Intubation in Weightlessness), which is not on this 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.
Evaluation and Comparison of Two Positions for Free Floating Tracheal Intubation in Weightlessness: An Ice-Pick Position With a Direct Laryngoscopy and the Classic Approach With VideolaryngoscopyY
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A high-fidelity simulator for evaluation of hemodynamic response during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in hypogravity environments.NPJ microgravity · 2026Article
- Feasibility of ultrasound-guided nerve blocks in simulated microgravity: a proof-of-concept study for regional anaesthesia during deep space missions.British journal of anaesthesia · 2024Article
- Influence of Curved Video Laryngoscope Blade Sizes and Patient Heights on Video Laryngoscopic Views: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of personalized medicine · 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
10 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Long duration spaceflights to the Moon or Mars are at risk for emergency medical events. Managing a hypoxemic distress and performing an advanced airway procedure such as oro-tracheal intubation may be complicated under weightlessness due to ergonomic constraints. An emergency free-floating intubation would be dangerous because of high failure rates due to stabilization issues that prohibits its implementation in a space environment. Nevertheless, we hypothesized that two configurations could lead to a high first-pass success score for intubation performed by a free-floating operator. In a non-randomized, controlled, cross-over simulation study during a parabolic flight campaign, we evaluated and compared the intubation performance of free-floating trained operators, using either a conventional direct laryngoscope in an ice-pick position or an indirect laryngoscopy with a video-laryngoscope in a classic position at the head of a high-fidelity simulation manikin, in weightlessness and in normogravity. Neither of the two tested conditions reached the minimal terrestrial ILCOR recommendations (95% first-pass success) and therefore could not be recommended for general implementation under weightlessness conditions. Free-floating video laryngoscopy at the head of the manikin had a significant better success score than conventional direct laryngoscopy in an ice-pick position. Our results, combined with the preexisting literature, emphasis the difficulties of performing oro-tracheal intubation, even for experts using modern airway devices, under postural instability in weightlessness. ClinicalTrials registration number NCT05303948.
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.