ArticleCureus2026
Comparison of 4 ml of 1% Lignocaine Versus 2 ml of 2% Lignocaine for Landmark-Guided Superior Laryngeal Nerve Block During Awake Fiberoptic Intubation.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSuperior laryngeal nerve block is one option for airway topicalization during awake fiberoptic intubation. The optimal balance between injectate volume and lignocaine (lidocaine) concentration remains uncertain.
objectiveTo compare a larger-volume, lower-concentration regimen (4 mL of 1% lignocaine per side) with a smaller-volume, higher-concentration regimen (2 mL of 2% lignocaine per side). We hypothesized that the larger volume would improve neural spread, increase the proportion of completely relaxed vocal cords, and shorten fiberoptic intubation time without increasing adverse events.
methodsIn this single-center randomized assessor-blinded trial, 72 adults requiring awake fiberoptic nasotracheal intubation were allocated 1:1 to the 1% group or the 2% group (36 per group). Each regimen delivered 40 mg per side. The primary outcome was completely relaxed vocal cords (Grade 1) during bronchoscope negotiation. Secondary outcomes included fiberoptic intubation time, discomfort assessed 24 hours after extubation, serial hemodynamic variables, oxygen saturation, and bleeding. Categorical outcomes were re-analyzed with exact tests. Fiberoptic intubation time was additionally examined in a post hoc multivariable linear model adjusted for age, sex, and body weight.
resultsGrade 1 vocal-cord status occurred in 32/36 (88.9%) patients in the 1% group and 23/36 (63.9%) in the 2% group (odds ratio 4.52, 95% CI 1.31-15.66; Fisher exact P=0.025). Mean fiberoptic intubation time was 129.3 ± 39.0 seconds versus 161.2 ± 56.8 seconds, respectively (mean difference -31.9 seconds, 95% CI -54.9 to -9.0; P=0.007). The adjusted difference was -29.3 seconds (95% CI -52.9 to -5.6; P=0.015). No discomfort at 24 hours was reported by 32/36 (88.9%) versus 24/36 (66.7%) patients (P=0.045). Bleeding occurred in 2/36 (5.6%) versus 7/36 (19.4%) patients (P=0.151). Serial hemodynamic values were broadly similar; an isolated difference in diastolic pressure at one minute was not interpreted as a sustained treatment effect.
conclusionFor landmark-guided superior laryngeal nerve block, 4 mL of 1% lignocaine per side was associated with more completely relaxed vocal cords and shorter fiberoptic intubation time than 2 mL of 2% lignocaine per side. The findings support further multicenter confirmation using validated airway-anesthesia scales and fully blinded injectate preparation where feasible.
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.