Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2025
Hyomental distance measured ultrasonography versus weight-based criteria for laryngeal mask size selection in children: a 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. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTypically, when choosing a size for a child’s laryngeal mask airway (LMA), weight is considered; however, this approach has limitations. This study evaluated the efficacy of ultrasonography (US) measured hyomental distance (HMD) compared to weight-based criteria for optimizing the selection of LMA size in pediatrics.
methodsThis randomized controlled trial included 60 children aged 3–14 years scheduled for surgery requiring LMA. Patients were randomized equally to two groups. LMA size was selected based on either US-measured HMD [< 2 cm for size 2, 2–3 cm for size 2.5, and > 3 cm for size 3] in the HMD group or weight-based [size 2 for 10 to 20 kg, size 2.5 for 20 to 30 kg, and size 3 for 30 to 50 kg] in the control group (C Group).
resultsThe success rate (the proportion of cases where the first-selected LMA size required no adjustment or alternative devices) was significantly higher in the HMD group compared to the control group (93.33 vs. 70%, p = 0.041). LMA placement five-point optimization scores (1: easiest insertion, 5: impossible) and a two-point scale (0: optimal cuff symmetry/esophageal alignment, 1: suboptimal) were significantly better in the HMD group (p < 0.05). The HMD method demonstrated superior predictive value for successful intubation with 98% sensitivity and 72.7% specificity, compared to weight-based criteria with 87.8% sensitivity and 9.1% specificity (p < 0.001).
conclusionsUS-measured HMD in pediatrics provides a superior method for choosing LMA size in children than traditional weight-based criteria, resulting in improved intubation success rates, better optimization scores, and higher predictive accuracy, aligning with prior studies in neonates and adults. We recommend HMD as a more reliable metric for pediatric LMA sizing.
trial registrationThe Pan African Clinical Trial Registry was notified about the trial before patient recruitment (PACTR202306740935710, registration date: 09 Jun 2023).
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.