ArticleAnesthesiology and pain medicine2023
Conditions for Insertion of the Laryngeal Mask Airway in an Innovative Method vs the Classic Method.
Article in Anesthesiology and pain medicine, 2023. 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.
- Impact of Oropharyngeal Stimulation during Laryngeal Mask Insertion on Cardiovascular Response in adult patients. A Double-blind Clinical Trial Study.Bulletin of emergency and trauma · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A laryngeal mask airway (LMA) is a simple and non-invasive device used to establish the airway and maintain ventilation and oxygenation during short-duration medical procedures. Objectives: This study aimed to compare the placement of an LMA using an innovative technique vs the classic method. Methods: This clinical trial was conducted at Faiz Hospital in Isfahan. Out of 110 candidates for elective eye surgery, 10 patients were excluded from the study as they did not meet the inclusion criteria. Ultimately, 100 patients were randomly allocated to 2 groups of 50 each. One group underwent LMA insertion using the classic method, while the other group underwent insertion using the face-to-face triple maneuver technique (FFTMT). Data, including laryngeal mask insertion conditions, hemodynamic responses, and clinical complications, were collected, entered into SPSS version 26, and analyzed. Results: There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of laryngeal mask placement time (P = 0.061), number of attempts to place the LMA (P = 0.059), oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP; P = 0.942), frequency of hoarseness (P > 0.99), or laryngospasm (P > 0.99). However, it is noteworthy that FFTMT appeared to provide easier placement of the LMA (P < 0.0001), required fewer attempts, and offered better quality of ventilation with a lower presence of blood on the cuff (P = 0.038). Conversely, the FFTMT group had a higher frequency of sore throat (P < 0.0001). Conclusions: The performance of LMA using FFTMT is comparable to the classic method. In procedures under general anesthesia where the surgeon has access to the patient's head and neck (such as cataract surgery), airway management with LMA using FFTMT (while maintaining the patient's sterile covering) appears to be effective in case of an emergency.
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.