ArticleCureus2023
Comparison of Tracheal Intubation Using King Vision (Non-channeled Blade) and Tuoren Video Laryngoscopes in Patients With Cervical Spine Immobilization by Manual In-Line Stabilization: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07482436 (The Effect of Preoperative and Postoperative Airway Ultrasonography and Different Laryngoscope Uses on Intubation Success and Postoperative Complications in Obese Patients), which is not on this 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.
The Effect of Preoperative and Postoperative Airway Ultrasonography and Different Laryngoscope Uses on Intubation Success and Postoperative Complications in Obese Patients
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Intubation during Uninterrupted Chest Compressions: How Easy?Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGlottic visualization on cervical immobilization with manual in-line stabilization (MILS) might be challenging in individuals with cervical spine injuries. We compared non-channeled King Vision video laryngoscope (VL) (Ambu GmbH, Bad Nauheim, Germany) with Tuoren video laryngoscope (Henan Tuoren Medical Device, Zhengzhou, China) for endotracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization.
methodsA total of 124 patients undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia were included in this study. After induction of general anesthesia, patients were randomized into two groups (62 each): group K (non-channeled blade of King Vision video laryngoscope) and group T (Tuoren video laryngoscope). Cervical spine immobilization was achieved with manual in-line stabilization. The success of the first pass intubation, the time required to intubate, glottic visualization, and intubation difficulty score (IDS) were recorded.
resultsThe first-attempt success rate of intubation was 95.2% (59 out of 62 patients) in group K and 90.3% (56 out of 62 patients) in group T, which were comparable. The mean glottic visualization time was significantly less with group T (12.74 ± 6.32 seconds) compared to group K (17.92 ± 4.24 seconds). Intubation time was significantly faster with group K (18.79 ± 5.857 seconds) compared to group T (27.21 ± 8.514 seconds). Both video laryngoscopes provided good grades of glottic visualization.
conclusionsWe conclude that the performance of the Tuoren video laryngoscope is similar to the King Vision video laryngoscope in terms of first-attempt intubation success rate and glottic visualization score in patients with cervical spine immobilization by manual in-line stabilization. Although glottic visualization time was shorter with Tuoren VL, we could achieve faster intubation with King Vision VL.
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.