Advancing emergency airway management: Video laryngoscope vs intubating laryngeal mask airway in critical care

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 15, Issue 1

Peer-Review Report of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

All Articles published online

Item

Count

PDF

HTML

Figures (1-1)

Tables (1-1)

Sum=69

Publishing Process of This Article

Item

Count

Browse

Download

Sum=7

Mar 9, 2026 (publication date) through Mar 6, 2026

Times Cited of This Article

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Critical Care Medicine

ISSN

2220-3141

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Editorial

©Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2026. No commercial re-use. See Permissions. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.

World J Crit Care Med. Mar 9, 2026; 15(1): 117127
Published online Mar 9, 2026. doi: 10.5492/wjccm.v15.i1.117127

Table 1 Intubation success rates and attempts - video laryngoscope vs intubating laryngeal mask airway groups, n (%)

Outcome	Video laryngoscope group (n = 32)	Intubating laryngeal mask airway group (n = 32)
First-attempt success	28 (87.5)	17 (53.1)
Attempts distribution
1 attempt	28 (87.5)	17 (53.1)
2 attempts	4 (12.5)	7 (21.9)
3 attempts	0 (0)	2 (6.2)
Failed intubation	0 (0)	6 (18.8)

Citation: Feyissa GD. Advancing emergency airway management: Video laryngoscope vs intubating laryngeal mask airway in critical care. World J Crit Care Med 2026; 15(1): 117127
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2220-3141/full/v15/i1/117127.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5492/wjccm.v15.i1.117127