ArticleActa anaesthesiologica Scandinavica2026
Climate Impact of Laryngeal Masks: Climate and Other Environmental Impacts of Reusable and Single-Use Laryngeal Masks in Sweden.
Article in Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Attitudes, knowledge, practices, and perceived barriers on sustainability actions among Italian anesthesiologists-intensivists: a nationwide survey.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026Article
- Climate Impact of Laryngeal Masks: Climate and Other Environmental Impacts of Reusable and Single-Use Laryngeal Masks in Sweden.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- A Comparison of Four Newer Supraglottic Airway Devices for Airway Management of Entrapped Trauma Patients with Difficult Access-A Randomised, Controlled Manikin Trial.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundThe use of single-use laryngeal masks has increased in recent decades; yet, their climate and environmental impacts remain poorly understood. This study aimed to compare the climate impacts of reusable and single-use laryngeal masks.
methodsWe conducted a life cycle assessment that compared the reusable Ambu Aura40 with the single-use Ambu AuraStraight and Intersurgical Igel+ laryngeal masks. Data were obtained from the manufacturers, the ecoinvent database v3.10 and from Helsingborg Hospital, Sweden. Climate impacts were assessed using the ReCiPe2016 method, assuming 40 reuses of the Aura40. The results were expressed in carbon dioxide equivalents over a 100-year period (CO
resultsThe climate impact of the Aura40 was 141 gCO
conclusionsThe Aura40 reusable laryngeal mask constitutes an opportunity to reduce the climate impact of anaesthesia in a setting with a low-climate-impact electricity mix. Among single-use options, the AuraStraight had a lower climate impact than the Igel+. EDITORIAL COMMENT: Single-use or reusable anesthesia equipment, like laryngeal masks have different costs associated with their use, and leave different environmental 'footprints'. This analysis presents models for these, to estimate the environmental impact and costs of these. This type of analysis is important to try to clarify the use 'case' for different alternatives for choices for materiel used in clinical areas like anesthesia.
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.