ArticleScientific reports2023
I-gel Plus acts as a superior conduit for fiberoptic intubation than standard i-gel.
Article in Scientific reports, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical performance of i-gel and i-gel Plus for airway management of obese patients: A prospective randomised controlled trial.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2026Article
- Performance of the new Laryngeal Tube LTInternational journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The supraglottic airway (SGA) is widely used. I-gel Plus is a next-generation i-gel with some improvements, including facilitation of fiberoptic tracheal intubation (FOI). To compare the performance of i-gel Plus and standard i-gel as conduits for FOI, a Thiel-embalmed cadaveric study was conducted. Twenty-two anesthesiologists were enrolled as operators in Experiment 1. The i-gel Plus and standard i-gel were inserted into one cadaver, and the FOI was performed through each SGA. The primary outcome was time required for FOI. The secondary outcomes were the number of attempts and visual analog scale (VAS) score for difficulty in FOI. Moreover, fiberoptic views of the vocal cords in each SGA were assessed by an attending anesthesiologist using nine cadavers in Experiment 2. The percentage of glottic opening (POGO) score without fiberscope tip upward flexion and upward angle of the fiberscope tip to obtain a 100% POGO score were evaluated as secondary outcomes. The time for FOI through i-gel Plus was significantly shorter than that through standard i-gel (median (IQR), i-gel Plus: 30.3 (25.4-39.0) s, vs standard i-gel: 54.7 (29.6-135.0) s; median of differences, 24.4 s; adjusted 95% confidence interval, 3.0-105.7; adjusted P = 0.040). Although the number of attempts for successful FOI was not significantly different, the VAS score for difficulty in the i-gel Plus group was significantly lower (easier) than that in the standard i-gel group. Moreover, i-gel Plus required a significantly smaller upward angle of the fiberscope tip to obtain a 100% POGO score. FOI can be performed more easily using i-gel Plus than using standard i-gel because of the improved fiberoptic visibility of vocal cords.
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.