Intubation Success through I-Gel® and Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway® Using Flexible Silicone Tubes: A Randomised Noninferiority Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. The study aims to test whether flexible silicone tubes (FST) improve performance and provide similar intubation success through I-Gel as compared to ILMA. Our trial is registered in CTRI and the registration number is "CTRI/2016/06/006997." Methods. One hundred and twenty ASA status I-II patients scheduled for elective surgical procedures needing tracheal intubation were randomised to endotracheal intubation using FST through either I-Gel or ILMA. In the ILMA group (n = 60), intubation was attempted through ILMA using FST and, in the I-Gel group (n = 60), FST was inserted through I-Gel airway. Results. Successful intubation was achieved in 36.67% (95% CI 24.48%-48.86%) on first attempt through I-Gel (n = 22/60) compared to 68.33% (95% CI 56.56%-80.1%) in ILMA (n = 41/60) (p = 0.001). The overall intubation success rate was also lower with I-Gel group [58.3% (95% CI 45.82%-70.78%); n = 35] compared to ILMA [90% (95% CI 82.41%-97.59%); n = 54] (p < 0.001). The number of attempts, ease of intubation, and time to intubation were longer with I-Gel compared to ILMA. There were no differences in the other secondary outcomes. Conclusion. The first pass success rate and overall success of FST through an I-Gel airway were inferior to those of ILMA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".