Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2025
Video laryngoscope versus disposcope endoscope for anticipated laryngeal tumor related difficult intubation in patients undergoing general anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Antrochoanal polyp with aberrant attachment causing airway obstruction: Presenting an anaesthesia challenge in resource-limited settings.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeLaryngeal tumors can cause significant anatomical distortion, making tracheal intubation challenging. Compared to video laryngoscope (VL), intubation using a Disposcope endoscope (DE) offers flexibility and allows for better navigation around obstructive lesions in the upper airway. This study aimed to compare the clinical performance of DE and VL for anticipated laryngeal tumor related difficult intubation in Ear, Nose, and Throat (ENT) patients undergoing general anesthesia.
methodsWe conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Eighty patients with anticipated difficult intubation due to laryngeal tumors undergoing elective surgery were included and randomly allocated to either the DE group (n = 40) or the VL group (n = 40). The primary outcome was the first-attempt success rate of tracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes included intubation time, hemodynamic response, and the incidence of complications related to intubation.
resultsA total of 80 subjects (61 male/19 female, 30 to 81 years old) were included in the final analysis. The first-attempt success rate of tracheal intubation was significantly higher in the DE group compared with the VL group (97.5% vs. 77.5%; mean difference [95% CI]: 20% [5.5 to 35.1]; P = 0.007). The intubation time was reduced in the DE group compared to the VL group (28.5 ± 6.7 s vs. 39.0 ± 10.0 s, mean difference [95% CI]: 10.5 s [6.7 to 14.3]; P < 0.001). Compared to DE, VL exhibited a higher heart rate one minute after intubation (71.1 ± 10.9 bpm vs. 78.3 ± 12.8 bpm; mean difference [95% CI]: 7.2 bpm [1.9 to 12.5]; P = 0.008). The incidence of postoperative airway complications was not significantly different between the two groups.
conclusionThe DE showed a higher first-attempt success rate and a shorter intubation time than the VL for anticipated laryngeal tumor related difficult intubation in ENT patients undergoing general anesthesia.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trials Identifier ChiCTR2300068449.
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.