Trial reportBrazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)
Comparative analysis of a 3D-printed videolaryngoscope versus the Macintosh model in adult airway management: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier). 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.
- Airway Management: why training, judgement, and competence remain the most important technologies.Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesVideo Laryngoscopy (VL) provides enhanced glottic visualization in airway management, but its high cost limits adoption. Three-Dimensional (3D) printing offers a cost-effective alternative for producing VL devices. This randomized trial compared a 3D-printed Videolaryngoscope (VL3D) with the standard Macintosh Laryngoscope (MAC) during tracheal intubation in adults.
methodsThis was a randomized, controlled, and assessor-blinded clinical trial. The primary outcome was intubation difficulty, assessed using the Intubation Difficulty Scale (IDS). Secondary outcomes included glottic visualization (Cormack-Lehane grade) and Intubation Time (IT). The final analysis followed a modified intention-to-treat principle.
resultsThis study included 52 patients scheduled to undergo general anesthesia with tracheal intubation. Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. The analysis included 49 patients (VL3D, n = 26; MAC, n = 23). Categorical analysis of the primary outcome showed a higher incidence of moderate-to-severe intubation difficulty in the VL3D group (23.1% vs. 0%, p = 0.032), although median IDS scores were statistically similar. In relation to secondary outcomes, the VL3D provided significantly superior glottic visualization (Cormack-Lehane grade I: 72.0% in the VL3D group vs. 33.3% in the MAC group, p = 0.002). Conversely, the VL3D was associated with a significantly longer intubation time (median 70 seconds vs. 40 seconds, p = 0.005).
conclusionsThe VL3D demonstrated superior glottic visualization but correlated with significantly longer intubation duration and greater procedural difficulty. These findings suggest that additional specialized training or design optimization is necessary before widespread clinical implementation.
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.