Trial reportAnaesthesia2025
Evaluation of five static or dynamic tracheal tube introducers during standard and difficult intubations with C-MAC
Trial report in Anaesthesia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Seeing is not enough: why introducer choice matters in hyperangulated videolaryngoscopy.Annals of translational medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTracheal tube introducers facilitate tracheal intubation and include stylets and static/dynamic bougies. There is uncertainty over the most efficacious introducer with hyperangulated videolaryngoscopy.
methodsWe evaluated five introducers. Thirty anaesthetists intubated a manikin 10 times with a reusable C-MAC® D-blade videolaryngoscope using five introducers in two airway setups. Airway setup was allocated randomly to standard or difficult tracheal intubation and the order of use of five introducers: two stylets (C-MAC Stylet; Universal Stylet Bougie™); two dynamic bougies (Total Control Introducer™; Steerable Tracheal Intubation Guide™); and a static bougie (Portex® Bougie). The primary outcome was first-attempt tracheal intubation success. Secondary outcomes were tracheal intubation within 120 seconds; time to tracheal intubation; and operator-rated ease of tracheal intubation, railroading and force required.
resultsWith the standard tracheal intubation setup, first-attempt tracheal intubation success rates (95%CI) were: C-MAC Stylet 100% (100-100%); Universal Stylet Bougie 93% (84-100%); Total Control Introducer 90% (79-100%); Steerable Tracheal Intubation Guide 80% (65-95%); and Portex bougie 57% (37-76%). With the difficult tracheal intubation setup, first-attempt tracheal intubation success rates (95%CI) were: C-MAC Stylet 93% (84-100%); Total Control Introducer 87% (74-99%); Universal Stylet Bougie 73% (56-90%); Steerable Tracheal Intubation Guide 60% (41-79%); and Portex bougie 33% (15-51%). The C-MAC Stylet was best and the static bougie worst across all outcomes, with differences greater when tracheal intubation was designed to be difficult. In pairwise comparisons of tracheal intubation first-attempt success in the difficult airway, the C-MAC Stylet, Universal Stylet Bougie and Total Control Introducer were statistically significantly better than the Portex Bougie; the C-MAC stylet was also statistically significantly better than the Steerable Tracheal Intubation Guide. DISCUSSION: Among introducers for hyperangulated videolaryngoscopy, stylets were most efficacious and a static bougie least. Differences in performance increased when tracheal intubation was difficult.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40432229What 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.