ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2025
Comparison of BlockBuster® Laryngeal Mask Airway, King Vision® Video Laryngoscope, and flexible intubation scope for orotracheal intubation in adult patients with simulated immobilised cervical spine: A randomised controlled trial.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Flexible intubation scope, video laryngoscope and supraglottic airway device-guided tracheal intubation are suggested in cervical spine injury patients to avoid further exacerbation of cord injury. This study compared the intubation characteristics of BlockBuster laryngeal mask airway (BBLM), King Vision video laryngoscope (KKVL) and flexible intubation scope (FIS) in patients with simulated immobilised cervical spine. Methods: This study was performed on 120 adult patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II scheduled for elective surgery under general anaesthesia requiring orotracheal intubation. Patients were randomly allocated to Group BBLM, Group KVVL and Group FIS. Time to intubation, first-attempt success rate and complications were recorded and compared between the three groups. Results: There was a significant difference in the mean total time for intubation between the groups ( Conclusion: Intubation time was faster with BBLM and KVVL than with FIS in patients with simulated cervical spine immobilisation. The first-attempt success rate and complications were the same for all three devices.
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.