ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2024
Emergency airway management in the prone position: an observational mannequin-based simulation study.
Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prone retroperitoneal versus lateral retroperitoneal robotic assisted partial nephrectomy: a propensity score-matched comparison.World journal of urology · 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
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAccidental extubation during prone position can be a life-threatening emergency requiring rapid establishment of the airway. However, there is limited evidence of the best airway rescue method for this potentially catastrophic emergency. The aim of this study was to determine the most effective method to recover the airway in case of accidental extubation during prone positioning by comparing three techniques (supraglottic airway, video laryngoscopy, and fiber-optic bronchoscopy) in a simulated environment.
methodsEleven anesthesiologists and 12 anesthesia fellows performed the simulated airway management using 3 different techniques on a mannequin positioned prone in head pins. Time required for definitive airway management and the success rates were measured.
resultsThe success rates of airway rescue were 100% with the supraglottic airway device (SAD), 69.6% with the video laryngoscope (CMAC), and 91.3% with the FOB. The mean (SD) time to insertion was 18.1 (4.8) s for the supraglottic airway, 78.3 (32.0) s for the CMAC, and 57.3 (24.6) s for the FOB. There were significant differences in the time required for definitive airway management between the SAD and FOB (t = 5.79, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 25.92-52.38), the SAD and CMAC (t = 8.90, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 46.93-73.40), and the FOB and CMAC (t = 3.11, p = 0.003, 95% CI = 7.78-34.25).
conclusionThe results of this simulation-based study suggest that the SAD I-gel is the best technique to manage accidental extubation during prone position by establishing a temporary airway with excellent success rate and shorter procedure time. When comparing techniques for securing a definitive airway, the FOB was more successful than the CMAC.
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.