ArticleCureus2025
Comparison of AceScope With Tube-Channelled Blade Versus McGRATH MAC Video Laryngoscope With Non-channelled Blade in a Difficult-Airway Manikin Model.
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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThe AceScope (Ace Medical Co., Ltd, Seoul, Republic of Korea) is a new Macintosh video laryngoscope equipped with a tube-channelled type blade. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the AceScope with a tube-channelled type blade compared to the McGRATH MAC video laryngoscope (Medtronic plc, Galway, Ireland) with a non-channelled type blade in a difficult airway model. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwelve experienced anesthesiologists performed tracheal intubation on a difficult airway manikin using both devices. The primary outcome measured was intubation time. Secondary outcomes included user satisfaction, intubation success rate, and dental damage rate.
resultsThe AceScope with a tube-channelled type blade significantly reduced intubation time compared to the McGRATH with a non-channelled type blade (16 vs. 19 seconds, p=0.04). There were no significant differences in user satisfaction or intubation success rates between the two devices, and no tooth injuries were observed with either device.
conclusionsThe AceScope with a tube-channelled type blade is more effective in reducing intubation time in difficult airway scenarios than the McGRATH with a non-channelled type blade. However, these findings are limited to manikin models.
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.