Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37749883›Full record

Trial reportMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2023

Comparing the Effectiveness and Safety of MedAn with the Nishikawa Blade and UE Videolaryngoscopes for Left-Sided Double-Lumen Endobronchial Tube Intubation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Yong Zhang, Wenwen Zhang, Shuai Wang, Hailing Yin, Yajie Xu, Zhaojing Fang, Hongguang Bao, Chen Zhang, Xiaoliang Wang, Wentao Liu

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 37% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yong ZhangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China (mainland).
Wenwen ZhangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China (mainland).
Shuai WangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China (mainland).
Hailing YinDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China (mainland).
Yajie XuDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China (mainland).ORCID 0000-0002-2296-3508
Zhaojing FangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China (mainland).
Hongguang BaoDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China (mainland).
Chen ZhangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China (mainland).
Xiaoliang WangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China (mainland).
Wentao LiuDepartment of Pharmacology, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China (mainland).
Nanjing Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of the MedAn videolaryngoscope with the Nishikawa blade (MedAn) vs the UE videolaryngoscope (UE) for intubation with a left-sided double-lumen endobronchial tube (LDLT) in patients with normal airways. MATERIAL AND METHODS We randomly categorized 106 patients scheduled to undergo elective thoracic surgery with LDLT for one-lung ventilation into 2 groups: the UE group (Group UE) and the MedAn group (Group MedAn), using the MedAn or UE for LDLT intubation. The primary outcome was time to successful intubation. The Cormack-Lehane classification of laryngeal view was the key secondary outcome. Other secondary outcomes included first-attempt and overall intubation success rates, laryngoscopy time, LDLT placement time, operators' subjective evaluation of videolaryngoscopes, hemodynamic changes during videolaryngoscopic intubation, and adverse outcomes. RESULTS The time to successful intubation and LDLT placement time of Group MedAn were 42.0 (32.35, 47.0) s and 23.0 (18.0, 26.0) s, and it was shorter than in Group UE (median, 42 s vs 49 s, 23 s vs 30 s, P<0.001). Group MedAn had a better laryngeal view (P=0.03) and less subglottic/tracheal mucosal injury (P<0.001) than Group UE. Moreover, the operators' subjective grading of ease of laryngoscopy, quality of view, and ease of LDLT placement were higher in Group MedAn than in Group UE (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS Compared with the UE, the MedAn could reduce the intubation time and provide a better laryngeal view and sufficient intubation space for safer LDLT intubation in patients with normal airways.

Indexed as

LarynxOne-Lung VentilationElective Surgical ProceduresHumansIntubation, Intratracheal

Identifiers

PMID37749883
PMCPMC10541791
OpenAlexW4385952789

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.