ArticleBMC anesthesiology2025
Superior recovery and efficiency with laryngeal mask airway compared to endotracheal intubation in minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum: a retrospective analysis.
Article 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive repair is the standard treatment for patients with pectus excavatum. Recent data suggest that using a laryngeal mask airway during thoracic surgery might offer advantages over endotracheal intubation, such as faster recovery from surgery, shorter anesthesia times and fewer complications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and potential benefits of laryngeal mask airway use in minimally invasive pectus excavatum repair.
methodsRetrospective analysis of electronic anesthesia protocols and records of patients who underwent pectus excavatum repair at a large academic center between 2019 and 2024. Perioperative data, complications, and procedural times were evaluated. Patients who had their airways secured with endotracheal intubation were compared to those who were ventilated using a laryngeal mask.
resultsData of 48 patients were analyzed (n = 32 with endotracheal intubation, n = 16 for laryngeal mask). The use of a laryngeal mask significantly shortened anesthesia induction time (4.0 vs. 7.5 min, p = 0.002), recovery time (9.1 vs. 19.0 min, p = 0.002) and emergence time (7.0 vs. 17.0 min, p < 0.001). Patients in the laryngeal mask group also had a significantly reduced need for postoperative oxygen supplementation (6.3 vs. 36.8%, p = 0.008). There were fewer anesthesiologic complications when a laryngeal mask was used, although this difference did not reach statistical significance (6.3 vs. 18.5%, p = 0.65). Hospital (6 vs. 5.5 days, p = 0.81) and ICU length of stay (21.73 vs. 23.84 h, p = 0.31), surgical complications (18.8 vs. 15.6%, p = 0.79) and incision-suture time (90.3 vs. 89.7 min, p = 0.92) were comparable in both groups.
conclusionsThe use of a laryngeal mask in minimally invasive pectus excavatum repair is safe and effective. Its advantages- reduced respiratory complications and shorter anesthesia-related times-support its use as an alternative airway device for this procedure for medical as well as for economic reasons.
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.