ArticleThe Laryngoscope2025
Does the TruBlue Laser Set Microlaryngoscopy Equipment on Fire? A Systematic Evaluation.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Revisiting Fire Safety Guidelines in COThe Laryngoscope · 2026Article
- Redefining Safe Practices in Airway TruBlue Laser Surgery-A Systematic Evaluation.The Laryngoscope · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe risk of fire during laser microlaryngoscopy is well known. However, limited information is available about fire risk with the novel TruBlue laser. This study systematically evaluates its interactions with common surgical supplies, offering valuable insights into safety considerations for surgeons. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe used experimental conditions to test the extent to which TruBlue laser energy produces smoke, perforation, or fire in Rüsch®, Medtronic™ and microlaryngeal endotracheal tubes and in surgical pledgets.
resultsOnly the Microlaryngeal Tube (MLT) caught fire. Notably, it happened only when the laser fiber shifted on the tube's surface. Smoke emerged solely from the laser fiber applied to the Medtronic™ shaft and only during continuous contact mode. Cuff perforation and smoke emanating from the shaft occurred in three-quarters of the Rüsch® trials. The pledgets' radiopaque segment exhibited a greater combustibility than other segments (p < 0.01). In many of the pledget trials, faster smoke emission occurred with shorter laser-to-target distances (p < 0.05). Water-soaked pledgets displayed a reduced rate of smoke production (p < 0.01) and string division.
conclusionThe Medtronic™ tube assures remarkable safety with a nonignitable shaft and low cuff ignition. The MLT poses the highest ignition risk. Cuff perforation risk is mitigated by maintaining a 0.3-cm distance from the laser fiber tip. Pledget fire risk is mitigated by positioning the radiopaque part away from the laser beam and by soaking the pledget with water. Laser division of the pledgets' string was common. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 135:1752-1758, 2025.
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.