ArticleSisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni2024
Can Laryngeal Mask Airway be the First Choice for Tracheal Stenosis Surgery? A Historical Cohort Study.
Article in Sisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni, 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.
- Surgical outcomes and risk factors for complications after tracheal resection in benign tracheal stenosis: A 15-year single-center experience.Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi · 2026Article
- Article
- Feasibility of laryngeal mask airway ventilation in selected pediatric pulmonary artery sling surgeries: a retrospective review.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the usage of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) and orotracheal intubation (OTI), which are separate airway management methods in tracheal reconstruction surgeries, in terms of perioperative management, mortality, and morbidity. Methods: Adult patients who underwent tracheal reconstruction surgery between June 2020 and June 2022 were included in the study, retrospectively. Patients with lost data or primary tracheal malignancy were excluded. Patients who underwent tracheal reconstruction were divided into two groups: LMA and OTI. Results: Of a total of 57 included patients, the OTI and LMA groups had 30 (52.63%) and 27 patients (47.37%), respectively. The rate of intubated transfer to the intensive care unit and the length of stay in the intensive care unit were significantly higher in the OTI group (p=0. 014, p=0. 031) than those of the LMA group; further, in tracheal cultures, reproduction was also significantly higher in the OTI group (23.33%) (p=0. 007). The postoperative mortality rates were similar in both groups. Conclusion: Since the absence of tension in end-to-end anastomosis of the trachea is vital for successful surgery, the LMA application (which has no tracheal contact) can be considered superior to OTI. In this study, LMA was successfully applied in all patients. Considering that the aim of anesthesia management should be to provide adequate oxygenation and normocarbia with minimally invasive intervention, we suggest airway management using LMA as the first option for tracheal reconstruction surgery because of the advantages described in this study.
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.