©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 6 Oxygen saturation in the video laryngoscope and intubating laryngeal mask airway groups at different intervals
| Oxygen saturation (%) | Video laryngoscope group (n = 32) | Intubating laryngeal mask airway group (n = 26) | P value |
| Baseline | 91.0 ± 9.7 | 93.3 ± 7.7 | t = -1.015; P = 0.315 |
| After anesthesia induction | 96.0 ± 6.4 | 97.2 ± 3.7 | t = -0.843; P = 0.403 |
| After device insertion | 95.6 ± 6.5 | 97.7 ± 3.8 | t = -1.470; P = 0.147 |
| 1 minute after intubation | 97.8 ± 4.6 | 98.7 ± 2.7 | t = -0.885; P = 0.380 |
| 2 minutes after intubation | 98.3 ± 4.2 | 98.9 ± 2.5 | t = -0.573; P = 0.569 |
| 3 minutes after intubation | 98.5 ± 3.8 | 98.9 ± 2.5 | t = -0.450; P = 0.654 |
- 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