Trial reportCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2024
A randomized comparison of three intubation techniques/tube materials for nasotracheal intubation.
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. It is linked to trial NCT04695444 (Comparison of the Effect of Tube Type and Intubation Technique on Nasopharyngeal Passage During Nasotracheal Intubation), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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 the Effect of Tube Type and Intubation Technique on Nasopharyngeal Passage During Nasotracheal Intubation
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reverse tube direction and epistaxis in left nasotracheal intubation: a randomized controlled trial.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2024Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe sought to compare three intubation methods using different intubation techniques/tube materials for tube advancement from the nasal cavity into the oral cavity during nasotracheal intubation.
methodsWe conducted a randomized clinical trial with adult patients scheduled to undergo elective surgery requiring nasotracheal intubation for general anesthesia. Participants were randomly allocated to a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) tube group (group P), PVC tube attached to a rubber catheter group (group PR), or velvet-soft PVC tube group (group V). Tracheal intubation was then performed based on group allocation. The primary outcome was the first-attempt success rate of tube advancement into the oral cavity; secondary outcomes included the time required for tube advancement into the oral cavity, total intubation time, and the incidence of epistaxis.
resultsA total of 149 patients were included in the study. The first-attempt success rate in group V (90%) was significantly higher than that in group P (58%) (odds ratio, 6.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.2 to 19.2), but similar to that in group PR (100%). The mean (standard deviation) time required for tube advancement into the oral cavity was significantly shorter in group V (16 [13] sec) than in group PR [40 (10) sec; 95% CI of mean difference, 17 to 30] and group P (26 [16] sec; 95% CI of mean difference, 3 to 16). Total intubation time was longest in group PR. Epistaxis occurred the least in group V.
conclusionsAmong the three intubation techniques/tube materials for nasotracheal intubation, the velvet-soft PVC tube provided the highest first-attempt success rate, most expeditious advancement into the oral cavity, and lowest incidence of epistaxis. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04695444); first submitted 30 December 2020.
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.