Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2025
Comparison of oropharyngeal leak pressure between the SaCoVLM™ video laryngeal mask and LMA supreme in adult elective surgery patients: a prospective randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this 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.
The Comparison of SaCoVLM™ Video Laryngeal Mask and LMA Supreme in Terms of Oropharyngeal Leak Pressure
Van Yuzuncu Yil University Faculty of Medicine Ethics Committee
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of clinical performance among the I-Gel Proseal Lma and Tulip Oropharyngeal Airway.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Observational
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
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) of SaCoVLM™ with that of LMA Supreme.
methodsThis prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blind study enrolled patients aged 18–80 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of classes I and II. The OLP was the primary outcome measure of the study. The glottic visualization grades, laryngeal mask insertion time and number of attempts, requirement for additional maneuvers, and incidence of complications were the secondary outcome measures.
resultsA total of 168 patients, comprising 83 patients in the SaCoVLM™ group and 85 patients in the LMA Supreme group, were included in this study. The median OLP values were 27 [24.0–30.0] cmH2O and 25 [20.0–35.0] cmH2O in the SaCoVLM™ and LMA Supreme groups, respectively. No significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of the OLP (p > 0.05). The first-attempt success rate in the SaCoVLM™ group was significantly higher than that in the LMA supreme group (98.8% vs. 91.8%, p = 0.034). In terms of glottic assessment, the complete glotis visualization rate in the SaCoVLM™ group (p < 0.001) was significantly higher than that in the LMA supreme group. However, the Grade 1–3 visualization rates were significantly lower in the SaCoVLM™ group (p < 0.001). Complications such as mucosal damage and postoperative sore throat were observed more frequently in the LMA Supreme group (p = 0.001).
conclusionsSaCoVLM™, which offers comparable OLP, superior glottic visualization, high first-attempt success rates, and a lower incidence of complications, may serve as an alternative supraglottic airway device.
trial registrationThe study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT06245668).
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.