ArticleCureus2026
A Tale of Two Scopes: Comparative Evaluation of Tuoren® and King Vision® Videolaryngoscopes in Patients Undergoing General Anesthesia.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaryngoscopy remains a cornerstone of airway management in anesthesiology. With advancements in technology, videolaryngoscopes have improved visualization and intubation success rates. Among these, the Tuoren® videolaryngoscope (Tuoren Medical Group, Henan, China) and the King Vision® videolaryngoscope (Ambu A/S, Ballerup, Denmark) have been widely used, although direct clinical comparisons between the two devices remain limited. This research sought to assess and compare ease of intubation, glottic visualization, time efficiency, and success rates between the Tuoren® and King Vision® videolaryngoscopes.
methodsA prospective, randomized, single-blind study was conducted on 98 adult patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-III undergoing elective surgeries requiring general anesthesia. The participants were allocated into two groups of 49 each: Group I was intubated using the Tuoren® device and Group II using the King Vision® device, after standard induction and neuromuscular blockade. The recorded parameters were intubation time, number of attempts, ease of intubation score, glottic visualization (modified Cormack-Lehane and Percentage of Glottic Opening (POGO) scores), and hemodynamic responses. Statistical analysis was performed using the IBM SPSS Statistics software for Windows, version 21.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).
resultsPatient demographics and baseline airway assessments were comparable between the groups. The mean intubation time was significantly shorter with the Tuoren® videolaryngoscope compared to the King Vision® videolaryngoscope (64.6 ± 28.8 s vs. 79.6 ± 13.2 s, p < 0.001). The Tuoren® group demonstrated a higher median ease of intubation score (3 (IQR 3-4) vs. 3 (IQR 3-3), p = 0.0011). Although King Vision® provided superior glottic views (p = 0.002), this did not translate to easier or faster intubation. Hemodynamic parameters and complication rates were similar between the two groups.
conclusionBoth Tuoren® and King Vision® videolaryngoscopes are effective for tracheal intubation under general anesthesia. While the King Vision® videolaryngoscope offers a marginally better glottic view, the Tuoren® videolaryngoscope provides faster and easier intubation, suggesting its potential as a reliable and cost-effective alternative in clinical practice. Further large-scale studies are warranted to confirm these findings across varied clinical scenarios.
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.