Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2026
Comparison of GMA-Tulip and i-gel supraglottic airway devices in orthopedic trauma surgery: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 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
Abstract
backgroundAccurate supraglottic airway device (SAD) placement is essential in general anesthesia, particularly in patients with orthopedic trauma who demonstrate unique airway challenges. We compared the novel noninflatable GMA-Tulip with the established second-generation i-gel.
methodsIn this randomized controlled trial, 198 adult patients who underwent emergency or urgent orthopedic trauma surgery were randomly assigned to receive either the i-gel or the GMA-Tulip. The primary outcome was the rate of correct anatomical alignment (defined as a Grade I or II glottic view), assessed immediately after insertion by using a flexible videoscope. Secondary outcomes included the success rate and time of SAD insertion, oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP), the ease and time of gastric tube placement, and postoperative complications.
resultsThe GMA-Tulip provided significantly better initial anatomical alignment than the i-gel (85.3% vs. 65.3%; risk difference 20.0%, 95% CI 7.8-31.5%; P = 0.001), with this significant advantage persisting at 60 min (81.3% vs. 56.6%; P = 0.001) and before device removal (77.4% vs. 53.2%; P < 0.001). Both devices demonstrated comparable overall insertion success rates (99% each) and median insertion times (14 s). OLPs measured at 10 min (in the neutral position and with head rotation) and at 60 min after insertion exhibited no significant between-group differences (all P > 0.05). The gastric tube placement time was shorter in the GMA-Tulip group (median time: 16.0 s vs. 21.0 s; P < 0.001). At 1 h postoperatively, the incidence of sore throat was lower in the GMA-Tulip group (23.7% vs. 33.0%; P = 0.026).
conclusionIn patients who underwent orthopedic trauma surgery, the GMA-Tulip consistently demonstrated superior anatomical alignment, facilitated easier and faster gastric tube placement, and reduced the incidence of early postoperative sore throat compared with the i-gel.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2500104359). Registered on June 16, 2025.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.