ArticlePerioperative medicine (London, England)2025
Effect of different gastrointestinal decompression methods during general anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Perioperative medicine (London, England), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDuring general anesthesia with drainage laryngeal mask airway (LMA) ventilation, a gastric tube or suction catheter is inserted through the drainage LMA hole during surgery. This allows for gastrointestinal decompression by vacuum aspiration. This study aimed to observe the effect of two decompression methods on the incidence of postoperative flatulence, nausea and vomiting, and other adverse reactions in patients undergoing general anesthesia.
methodsSixty patients (ASA I-II, aged 18-70 years) undergoing gynecological surgery with LMA ventilation under general anesthesia were randomly categorized into the gastric tube group (group G) and the suction catheter group (group S). After induction of general anesthesia, a gastric tube or suction catheter was placed through the drainage port of the drainage LMA in both groups, and vacuum aspiration was intermittently performed during the surgery. The antral area was monitored under ultrasound at three time points: after admission, after LMA insertion, and after LMA. Also, the incidence of adverse reactions, such as flatulence, and nausea and vomiting, was followed up at 1, 6, and 24 h after the surgery.
resultsCompared with group G, the antral area in group S increased significantly after the surgery (P < 0.05). In addition, the incidence of nausea and vomiting, and flatulence, in group S significantly increased 1 and 6 h after the surgery (all P < 0.05). No significant difference was observed in the incidence of nausea and vomiting, and flatulence, between the two groups 24 h after the surgery. No significant difference was noted in the incidence of sore throat and hoarseness at three time points after the surgery between the two groups.
conclusionsUnder general anesthesia with drainage LMA ventilation, gastrointestinal decompression with a gastric tube placed through the LMA drainage port could effectively prevent flatulence and reduce the incidence of adverse reactions such as nausea and vomiting. The placement of a suction catheter could not achieve the same clinical effect. CLINICAL
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry,registration number ChiCTR2300078990,22/12/2023.
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.