Comparison of patient outcomes between video and non-video laryngeal mask airway insertion performed by novices: a prospective randomized controlled study.

Ye Jiang, Fang Xing, Qian Wu, Yanan Gao, Guozhong Chen, Cheng Li

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

Point-of-Care Ultrasound in Airway Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026
Review

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ye Jiang *Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Anesthesiology and Brain Functional Modulation, Clinical Research Center for Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Translational Research Institute of Brain and Brain-Like Intelligence, Shanghai Fourth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.

Fang Xing *Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Anesthesiology and Brain Functional Modulation, Clinical Research Center for Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Translational Research Institute of Brain and Brain-Like Intelligence, Shanghai Fourth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.

Qian Wu *Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Anesthesiology and Brain Functional Modulation, Clinical Research Center for Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Translational Research Institute of Brain and Brain-Like Intelligence, Shanghai Fourth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.

Yanan GaoDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Anesthesiology and Brain Functional Modulation, Clinical Research Center for Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Translational Research Institute of Brain and Brain-Like Intelligence, Shanghai Fourth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.

Guozhong Chen *Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Anesthesiology and Brain Functional Modulation, Clinical Research Center for Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Translational Research Institute of Brain and Brain-Like Intelligence, Shanghai Fourth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.

Cheng Li *Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Anesthesiology and Brain Functional Modulation, Clinical Research Center for Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Translational Research Institute of Brain and Brain-Like Intelligence, Shanghai Fourth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study compares the patient outcomes of video laryngeal mask airway (V-LMA) and non-video laryngeal mask airway (NV-LMA) to assess which is easier for novices to master, achieves faster placement success, and causes least injury to the patients. Methods: Twenty novice practitioners (resident doctors/anesthesia nurses) from the Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Shanghai Fourth Peoples' Hospital, were randomized 1:1 to the V-LMA or NV-LMA group. After standardized training, the participants performed supervised LMA insertions on 60 patients. The learning outcomes and patient injury rates during LMA placement were compared between the groups. Results: Both groups achieved 100% first-attempt success. The V-LMA group demonstrated superior bronchoscope alignment (90% vs. 50%, Conclusion: When inserted by novice practitioners, the V-LMA improves placement accuracy and reduces patient injury compared with the NV-LMA. Clinical trial registration: ChiCTR2300069399.

Indexed as

laryngeal mask airwaylearning effectnoviceplacement accuracyvisual intubation laryngeal mask airway

Identifiers

PMID41244770

DOI10.3389/fmed.2025.1667040

PMCPMC12611803

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.