Trial reportAnaesthesiology intensive therapy2025
Comparison of LTS-D and i-gel in non-paralyzed pediatric patients under general anesthesia: a randomized trial.
Trial report in Anaesthesiology intensive therapy, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSecond-generation supraglottic airway devices, such as the laryngeal tube suction disposable (LTS-D) and i-gel, are widely used in pediatric anesthesia due to advantages such as improved sealing and gastric drainage. This randomized controlled trial compared the efficacy and safety of the LTS-D and i-gel in non-paralyzed pediatric patients under general anesthesia. MATERIAL AND
methodsEighty ASA I children aged 2-8 years (12-25 kg), scheduled for short elective surgical procedures, were randomized to the LTS-D (n = 40) or i-gel (n = 40) group. Primary outcomes were oxygen saturation (SpO₂) and end-tidal CO₂ (EtCO₂). Secondary outcomes included insertion time, oropharyngeal leak pressure, fiberoptic view, tidal volumes (Vt), and adverse events.
resultsBoth devices maintained comparable oxygenation. Mean EtCO₂ was slightly higher in the i-gel group, with a mean difference of 2.56 mmHg (95% CI: 1.86-3.26; P < 0.001). The i-gel had significantly faster insertion times (24.53 ± 2.00 s vs. 31.20 ± 1.95 s; P < 0.001) and superior fiberoptic visualization (optimal grades in 99% vs. 70%; P < 0.001). The LTS-D showed higher oropharyngeal leak pressures (37.63 ± 3.71 cmH₂O vs. 24.43 ± 1.72 cmH₂O; P < 0.001). Vt and adverse event rates were similar, with no severe complications reported (P = 0.65).
conclusionsBoth the LTS-D and i-gel are safe and effective for airway management in non-paralyzed children undergoing short procedures. The i-gel enables faster insertion and better anatomical positioning, while the LTS-D offers higher leak pressures, making it preferable when a better seal is needed. Device choice should be guided by clinical context and patient characteristics.
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.