©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 3 Intubation success in the video laryngoscope and intubating laryngeal mask airway groups, n (%)
| Outcome | Video laryngoscope group (n = 32) | Intubating laryngeal mask airway group (n = 32) | P value |
| First-attempt success | 28 (87.5) | 17 (53.1) | 0.009 |
| Attempts distribution | 0.009 | ||
| 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: 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