Trial reportCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2024
A comparative evaluation of fibreoptic bronchoscopy versus C-MAC
Trial report in Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Comparing approaches to the difficult airway.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2024Article
- In reply: Comparing approaches to the difficult airway.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeNasotracheal intubation (NTI) is required for surgery in oropharyngeal (OP) carcinoma patients, but it may be challenging because of distorted anatomy, mucosal congestion, and increased risk of bleeding. Flexible bronchoscopy (FB)-guided NTI is preferred in these cases but has limitations. In this randomized controlled study, we sought to compare C-MAC
methodsWe randomized a total of 100 patients with OP carcinoma and El-Ganzouri's risk index (EGRI) < 7 to undergo NTI under general anesthesia with FB (n = 50) or C-MAC D-BLADE-guided VL (n = 50). The primary outcome was the total intubation time. We also recorded the time to glottis view, nasal intubation difficulty scale (NIDS) score, best percentage of glottis opening score, and complications.
resultsThe median [interquartile range (IQR)] total intubation time was shorter with VL than with FB (total intubation time, 38 [26-43] sec vs 60 [52-65] sec; difference, -20 sec [95% confidence interval (CI), -27 to -11]; P < 0.001). Similarly, the median [IQR] time to glottis view was shorter with VL compared to FB (8 [6-9] sec vs 22 [14-25] sec; difference, -13 sec [95% CI, -17 to -10]; P < 0.001). The median NIDS score was higher with VL (difference, 2 [95% CI, 2 to 3]; P < 0.001). The incidences of airway trauma (two cases with FB vs seven with VL; P = 0.30) and postoperative sore throat (ten cases in both groups; P = 0.56) were similar.
conclusionCompared to FB, C-MAC D-BLADE-based VL reduced the total time for nasal intubation oropharyngeal carcinoma patients, potentially representing an acceptable alternative in selected cases.
trial registrationCTRI.nic.in (2018/11/0162830); first submitted 8 November 2018.
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.