ArticleCureus2025
Investigation of Endotracheal Tube Versus Laryngeal Mask Airway Emergence Times for Surgical Patients.
Article in Cureus, 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
introductionDuring surgical procedures requiring general anesthesia, an airway device is often placed to allow for adequate ventilation of the patient. Most commonly, endotracheal tubes (ETTs) or laryngeal mask airways (LMAs) are placed by the anesthesia provider. The difference between these two methods of ventilation is based on the location; ETTs pass through the glottis into the trachea, whereas the LMA sits above the glottis. This difference in placement may lend benefit to LMAs over ETTs, one of which includes a faster removal of the airway device. That is, after the surgical procedure is completed, there is a period when the anesthetic agent is turned off in preparation for the patient's awakening and subsequent removal of the airway device, also known as emergence. In this study, we aim to elucidate whether a difference in emergence times exists between using an ETT or LMA after general anesthesia. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted at OhioHealth Doctors Hospital, located in Columbus, Ohio, USA. Patients 18 years or older who underwent index surgery under general anesthesia between July 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019 were included. Patients were categorized based on the airway type (ETT or LMA). Clinical data and surgical outcomes were analyzed using descriptive statistics and appropriate statistical tests. Results: A total of 629 patients (282 ETT, 347 LMA) were included. The mean emergence time in the LMA group was found to be significantly shorter compared to that in the ETT group (5.6 vs 7.2 minutes, p<0.001). The LMA also correlated with reduced anesthesia duration, operating room (OR) time, and procedure time, with all p-values <0.001. Regression models identified the airway type and other various independent variables as predictors of emergence time and OR duration. The adjusted R² for emergence time was 5.90%, whereas the adjusted R² for OR duration was 41.26%. Conclusion: LMA use was associated with significantly shorter emergence times and operative times compared to ETTs. These findings suggest potential clinical benefits for patients, as well as workflow advantages with LMA use in appropriate surgical settings. Further prospective research is warranted to evaluate clinical outcomes, as well as cost-effectiveness.
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.