ArticleJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
Comparison of blind oro-tracheal intubation through LMA Blockbuster and LMA Protector - A prospective randomized study.
Article in Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology. 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.
- Article
- Blind intubation through a SAD: Is it justifiable in modern airway management?Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
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
Background and Aims: The present study was planned to compare two devices, namely LMA Blockbuster and LMA Protector, as a conduit for endotracheal intubation. The study aimed to compare the first-pass success rate of blind intubation, time taken for successful intubation, and ease of intubation through both devices. Material and Methods: This prospective randomized study was conducted on 100 patients of either sex aged 18-60 years, belonging to ASA physical status I-II, with 50 patients in each group (group B - LMA Blockbuster, and group P - LMA Protector). All the patients received general anesthesia. The primary objective was to compare the success rate, ease of blind tracheal intubation, time taken for intubation, and number of attempts. Secondary objectives included assessing the success of supraglottic device (SAD) placement, oropharyngeal seal pressure, and hemodynamic changes. Results: The insertion time of the SAD was 8.18 ± 3.66 and 10.94 ± 6.66 s for groups B and P, respectively. The SAD was placed on the first attempt in 96.0% of patients in group B and 88% of patients in group P. The total time taken for successful intubation was comparable between the groups ( Conclusions: We conclude that LMA Blockbuster and LMA Protector are both comparable and good intubating devices in terms of ease and success rate of intubation. However, LMA Blockbuster outperforms LMA Protector in terms of ease of insertion of SADs.
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.