Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41281105›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

A Prospective Randomized Study to Compare Standard to Reverse Insertion Techniques of Classic Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) in Pediatric Patients.

Atit Kumar, Prashant Mishra, Shuchi Nigam, Usha Shukla, Kuldeep Sahay

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Atit KumarAnesthesiology, Uttar Pradesh University of Medical Sciences (UPUMS), Etawah, IND.
Prashant MishraAnesthesiology, Rama Medical College and Hospital, Hapur, IND.
Shuchi NigamAnesthesiology and Critical Care, Uttar Pradesh University of Medical Sciences (UPUMS), Etawah, IND.
Usha ShuklaAnesthesiology and Critical Care, Uttar Pradesh University of Medical Sciences (UPUMS), Etawah, IND.
Kuldeep SahayAnesthesiology, Uttar Pradesh University of Medical Sciences (UPUMS), Etawah, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction The laryngeal mask airway (LMA) has emerged as a viable option for managing airways. It is an alternative rescue technique for both anticipated and unanticipated difficult airways in both elective and emergency settings. Methods In our study, 120 patients were divided into two groups: Group S (n=60), standard technique for classic LMA (c-LMA) insertion, and Group R (n=60), reverse technique for classic LMA insertion. The number of insertion attempts was recorded. Insertion was considered easy if there was successful placement on the first attempt with or without maneuvers. We also noted the total time for the successful placement of the airway. Results In Group S, successful LMA placement on the first attempt was done in 93.3% of the patients, compared to 86.7% of the patients in Group R, though it was not statistically significant (p=0.5265). The mean time required to secure the airway in Group S was 16.28±1.93 seconds, whereas in Group R, it was 18.40±2.92 seconds (p<0.0001). The difference in hemodynamic parameters was nonsignificant (p≥0.05). In Group S, incidences of complications were lower compared to Group R, but it was not statistically significant (p>0.05). Irrespective of the technique used, the failure rate was zero. Conclusion Considering the shorter insertion time, along with the lower complication rates, the standard technique may be regarded as the preferred method of LMA insertion over the reverse technique.

Indexed as

complicationsgeneral anaesthesiainsertionlaryngeal mask airwayspaediatrics

Identifiers

PMID41281105
PMCPMC12633845

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.