ArticleMedicine2025
Comparison study of LANJA, UE, and VDO video laryngoscopes for simulated endotracheal intubation in beginners.
Article in Medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The emergence of videolaryngoscopy has transformed airway management, being widely adopted for tracheal intubation, and enhancing glottic visualization, especially in complex scenarios. Continuous research is crucial to evaluate the efficacy of various designs. This study aims at evaluating the usability and safety of videolaryngoscopes in novice intubation simulations. This study compares the impact of LANJA, UE, and VDO video laryngoscopes on simulated endotracheal intubation by beginners. This non-randomized concurrent controlled simulation study involved 29 medical student volunteers with no prior endotracheal intubation experience. Following theoretical training by experienced anesthesiologists, participants watched intubation demonstration videos and engaged in hands-on practice. Using LANJA, UE, and VDO video laryngoscopes in random order, participants performed endotracheal intubation on a simulated airway mannequin. Observers recorded intubation procedure videos, analyzing intubation time, success rate, and laryngoscope exposure grading. Significant differences were observed in the time required for glottic exposure with the 3 laryngoscopes (intubation visualization time; LANJA: 5.47 ± 2.84; UE: 9.29 ± 2.88; VDO: 8.97 ± 2.99, P = .001). The endotracheal tube placement time (visualization and fixation time) did not differ significantly among the laryngoscopes (LANJA: 25.21 ± 7.35; UE: 25.04 ± 7.75; VDO: 27.66 ± 3.80, P = .31). Overall intubation success rates varied significantly among the 3 laryngoscopes (LANJA: 89.5%, UE: 78.9%, VDO: 63.2%, P = .002); within Cormack-Lehane grades, LANJA showed the highest percentage in Grade I (68.8%). LANJA video laryngoscope demonstrated a higher success rate in guiding endotracheal intubation, reducing glottic exposure time, and is suitable for use by beginners.
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.