ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2023
Comparison of oropharyngeal leak pressure of LMA Protector and LMA ProSeal in anaesthetised paralysed patients - A randomised controlled trial.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06527352 (Comparison of Risk of Gastroesophageal Reflux During General Anesthesia With Tulip vs GMA), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
Comparison of Risk of Gastroesophageal Reflux During General Anesthesia With Tulip vs GMA(Glottis Mask Airway) Airway
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Randomized Assessment of Airway Seal Pressure and Insertion Dynamics: I-gel versus Laryngeal Mask Airway Protector in Adult Difficult Airway Simulation in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Surgeries.Annals of African medicine · 2026Trial
- Gastric tube placement through the drainage channel of second-generation supraglottic airway devices: a systematic review with evidence mapping.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Comparison of i-gel®, Ambu® AuraGain™, Baska Mask, LMA® Protector™ for airway management of obese surgical patients - A randomised comparative study.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- Laryngeal mask airway proseal versus laryngeal mask airway protector for laparoscopic surgery: A randomized comparative study.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: In the present study, we hypothesised that the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) Protector would provide higher oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) than LMA ProSeal. Thus, we planned this study to compare the clinical performance of LMA Protector and LMA ProSeal in terms of OLP as a primary objective and insertion characteristics as secondary objectives. Methods: Ninety patients of either gender, aged 18-70 years, were randomised into groups PS (LMA ProSeal) and Results: The median (interquartile range) OLP was significantly higher with LMA protector than with LMA ProSeal [33.00 (27.0, 36.0) versus [29.50 (26.0, 32.0) ( Conclusion: LMA Protector provided a significantly higher OLP and less requirement of CP adjustments but comparable first-attempt success rate, mean insertion time, fibre-optic view, and gastric tube insertion as compared to LMA ProSeal.
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.