Trial reportAnaesthesiology intensive therapy2024
A randomised controlled trial to compare blind intubation success through LMA Blockbuster® and I-Gel® LMA.
Trial report in Anaesthesiology intensive therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- Comparison of BlockBusterIndian journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLaryngeal mask airway-blockbuster (LMA-BT) is a relatively new supraglottic airway device (SGAD). In this study, we compared LMA-BT with I-Gel LMA for efficacy of blind tracheal intubation. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe conducted a single-blind prospective study after ethical approval. One hundred American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) Grade I-III (age 18-60 years) patients scheduled for elective surgery under general anaesthesia with endotracheal intubation were included and randomly divided into 2 groups. Blind tracheal intubation was performed through LMA-BT ( n = 50) and I-Gel ( n = 50) in groups 1 and 2, respectively. The primary aim was to evaluate the first pass success rate of blind tracheal intubation through the LMAs. The secondary objectives noted were attempts and ease of LMA insertion, total time taken for LMA insertion, airway seal pressure of LMA, ease of NGT insertion through LMA, fibre-optic grading of laryngeal view through LMA, overall success rate and time of intubation through LMA, time for LMA removal, and complications, if any.
resultsIn the LMA-BT group, the first pass success rate ( P < 0.019) and the overall success rate of intubation ( P < 0.005) were significantly higher than in the I-Gel group. Using LMA-BT also resulted in statistically significant shorter intubation time ( P < 0.0001) with higher airway seal pressure as compared to I-Gel ( P < 0.001). The difference in the first attempt insertion, number of insertion attempts, ease and time of LMA insertion and removal after intubation, and postoperative complications were comparable among the groups.
conclusionsLMA-BT is a superior device as compared to I-Gel LMA as a conduit for blind tracheal intubation.
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.