ArticleJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
Comparison of fiberoptic-guided success of intubation using intubating LMA and intubating laryngeal tube suction.
Article in Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology. 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 Aims: The present study aimed to compare the success rate of fiberoptic-guided intubation, using Intubating laryngeal mask airway (ILMA) versus intubating laryngeal tube suction disposable (ILTS-D). Material and Methods: This prospective randomized study was conducted on 100 patients of either sex aged 18-60 years, belonging to the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II, with 50 patients in each group (group I -patients were intubated through ILMA, and group II - patients were intubated through ILTS-D). The primary objective was to compare the ease of fiberoptic-guided tracheal intubation, time taken for intubation, and number of attempts. Secondary objectives included assessing the success of supraglottic device (SAD) placement, oropharyngeal seal pressure, and hemodynamic changes, and adverse effects like sore throat, trauma, nausea, etc. Results: The insertion time of the SAD was 10.44 ± 4.26 and 9.08 ± 3.79 s for groups I and II, respectively. Mean insertion time for ETT (Endotracheal tube) placement (seconds) was 39.68 ± 9.48 s in group I and 50.12 ± 7.78 s in group II, which was found to be statistically significant between the groups ( Conclusion: Our study concluded that ILMA demonstrated superiority over ILTS-D when used as conduits for fiberoptic-guided tracheal intubation.
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.