ArticleJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
Comparison of the LMA BlockBuster and intubating LMA as a conduit to blind tracheal intubation.
Article in Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Comparison of BlockBuster® Laryngeal Mask Airway, King Vision® Video Laryngoscope, and flexible intubation scope for orotracheal intubation in adult patients with simulated immobilised cervical spine: A randomised controlled trial.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- Comparison of Tracheal Intubation Using the Air-Q ILA and LMA Blockbuster Among Adults Undergoing Elective Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation · 2024Article
- Comparison of blind oro-tracheal intubation through LMA Blockbuster and LMA Protector - A prospective randomized study.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
- Comparison of fiberoptic-guided success of intubation using intubating LMA and intubating laryngeal tube suction.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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Primary aim of the study was to evaluate the performance of Intubating LMA (ILMA) and blockbuster LMA in terms of first pass success rate, ease and duration taken for blind tracheal intubation. Material and Methods: The present prospective randomised study was conducted on 70 patients of either sex aged 18-60 years belonging to ASA physical status I or II. Patients were randomly allocated to either, group I and group B of n = 35 each. In group I and B patients were intubated using ILMA and LMA BlockBuster respectively. Insertion time and ease of placement of supraglottic device, total time taken for successful intubation, number of attempts for endotracheal tube (ETT) placement, and ease of placement of ETT, were recorded. Results: In both groups, the supraglottic device was placed on the first attempt in 88.6% patients. The first-attempt success rate for ETT placement was 71.4% in group I versus 94.3% in group B, ( Conclusion: We conclude that the modifications in the design of LMA Blockbuster (>95° angle, availability of the parker flex tube 27-30°angle of the emergence of airway tube) make it a more convenient, effective, simpler, and faster intubating device than ILMA.
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.