Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2024
Comparison between the standard method and the 30° curved tongue depressor-aided technique for insertion of a laryngeal mask airway: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLaryngeal mask airway (LMA) has been increasingly used for airway management; however, LMA insertion can be difficult and cause adverse effects. Therefore, the rapid, safe, and effective insertion of LMA is necessary. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of the standard method with that of the 30° curved tongue depressor-aided technique for LMA insertion to determine the superior technique.
methodsThis study included 154 patients aged 18-70 years (American Society of Anesthesiologists class I or II) scheduled for general anesthesia. The patients were randomly assigned to the standard LMA insertion group (Group C, n = 77) or the 30° curved tongue depressor-aided LMA insertion group (Group T, n = 77). The primary outcome evaluated was the first-attempt success rate. The secondary outcomes were the second-attempt success rate, insertion time, fiberoptic position grade, oropharyngeal leak pressure (OPLP), and adverse events.
resultsThe first-attempt success rate was significantly higher in Group T than in Group C (97.40% vs. 88.31%, P = 0.029). The second-attempt success rate (P = 0.209), insertion time (P = 0.340), fiberoptic position grade (P = 0.872), and OPLP (P = 0.203) were slightly improved in Group T; however, there was no statistical significance. Bleeding events were reduced in Group T than in Group C (6.49% vs. 14.29%); however, there was no statistical significance. The incidence of sore throat symptoms was significantly reduced in Group T than in Group C (5.19% vs. 15.58%, P = 0.035).
conclusionsThe curved tongue depressor-aided technique significantly improved the first-attempt success rate of LMA insertion and reduced the incidence of sore throat symptoms.
trial registrationKCT0004964; Registered at https://cris.nih.go.kr on April 27, 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.