©Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2026.
World J Crit Care Med. Mar 9, 2026; 15(1): 112345
Published online Mar 9, 2026. doi: 10.5492/wjccm.v15.i1.112345
Published online Mar 9, 2026. doi: 10.5492/wjccm.v15.i1.112345
Table 2 Airway assessment in the video laryngoscope and intubating laryngeal mask airway groups, n (%)
| Parameter | Video laryngoscope group (n = 23) | Intubating laryngeal mask airway group (n = 22) | P value |
| Thyromental distance (cm) (mean ± SD) | 6.79 ± 0.25 | 6.77 ± 0.18 | 0.780 |
| Sternomental distance (cm) (mean ± SD) | 12.72 ± 0.17 | 12.77 ± 0.15 | 0.287 |
| Interincisor distance (cm) (mean ± SD) | 4.40 ± 0.26 | 4.37 ± 0.22 | 0.647 |
| Neck circumference (cm) (mean ± SD) | 30.56 ± 5.1 | 30.50 ± 5.4 | 0.962 |
| Mallampati score | 0.667 | ||
| Class I | 4 (17.4) | 6 (27.3) | |
| Class II | 7 (30.4) | 7 (31.8) | |
| Class III | 12 (52.2) | 9 (40.9) | |
| Easy mask ventilation | 22 (68.8) | 15 (46.9) | > 0.050 |
| Mandibular protrusion | 0.316 | ||
| A | 20 (87.0) | 21 (95.5) | |
| B | 3 (13.0) | 1 (4.5) |
- Citation: Aggarwal A, Mustahsin M, Shishir P. Comparison of intubating laryngeal mask airway and video laryngoscope during emergency intubation in patients who are critically ill. World J Crit Care Med 2026; 15(1): 112345
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2220-3141/full/v15/i1/112345.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5492/wjccm.v15.i1.112345