ArticleAnesthesiology research and practice2025
Simulation-Based Comparison of Standard Versus Rotational Laryngeal Mask Airway Insertion Techniques in Novice Anesthesiologists: A Randomized Controlled Crossover Trial.
Article in Anesthesiology research and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05544838 (Simulation Based Comparison Of Standard Versus Rotational Laryngeal Mask Airway Insertion Technique In Novice Anesthesiologists. A Randomised Control Crossover Trial), which is not on this 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.
Simulation Based Comparison Of Standard Versus Rotational Laryngeal Mask Airway Insertion Technique In Novice Anesthesiologists. A Randomised Control Crossover Trial
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Simulation-Based Comparison of Standard Versus Rotational Laryngeal Mask Airway Insertion Techniques in Novice Anesthesiologists: A Randomized Controlled Crossover Trial.Anesthesiology research and practice · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Anesthesia trainers frequently experienced desaturation, airway trauma, and failed intubation with novice hands-on training for facemask and endotracheal intubation. Laryngeal mask airway (LMA) adaptation in anesthesia practice has ensured trainers' ease in safely transforming sufficient airway management skills to develop competency among novice trainees. This study was designed to evaluate the manikin-based standard versus rotational LMA insertion techniques to analyze insertion ease and priority LMA insertion technique among novice anesthesia trainees. Methods: Our randomized controlled crossover trial has enrolled 13 novice anesthesia trainees from multicenter hospitals. The study comprised three phases. Initially, the study participants were inquired on a preformed questionnaire for supraglottic airway device knowledge, insertion techniques, and experiences. In the second phase, trainees have undergone educational tutorial, video presentation, and hands-on practice on a manikin for standard and rotational LMA insertion techniques. Following that, the participants were divided into two study groups to evaluate LMA insertion, 10 times each with standard and rotational in a crossover manner. The third phase of the study was also questionnaire-based; trainees were inquired about the preferred LMA insertion technique for beginners. Result: The trainee's prior knowledge of supraglottic airway devices and practical experience were equivocal. There were no insertion failure attempts with both standard and rotational LMA insertion techniques. The time duration for the first attempt with standard LMA insertion was significantly shorter (7.92 ± 2.43 s) compared to the time duration for the first attempt with rotational LMA insertion (11.80 ± 3.41 s) on manikin. The post-study analysis revealed trainees' preference for the standard LMA insertion technique. Conclusion: Our study concludes that the standard LMA insertion technique is relatively easy to learn and practice on manikin compared to the rotational technique. Besides this, the novice anesthesia trainees have preferred standard LMA insertion as a priority technique in their clinical practice. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05544838.
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.