ClinicalTrials.gov
public full text
Public Domain
Endotracheal Intubation Using Videolaryngoscopy Versus Conventional Direct Laryngoscopy
The investigators will evaluate the endotracheal intubation using video laryngoscopy versus conventional direct laryngoscopy on intubation success, quantified by the number of intubation attempts. The question is important because video laryngoscopes are more expensive than conventional direct laryngoscopes. The additional cost might be justified if video systems improve intubation success and reduce airway trauma. But if they do not, the extra cost would not be justified
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Video Laryngoscope Versus USB Borescope in Difficult Intubation#1008563
- Safety and Efficacy of Endotracheal Intubation Using Glidescope Video-Laryngoscope#811277
- Comparison of Video Laryngoscopy Versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Orotracheal Intubation Among Adults in Emergency Department#841972
- A Comparison of Video Laryngoscopes and the Direct Laryngoscope in Simulated Normal and Difficult Infant Airway.#909552
- McGrath Video Laryngoscope for All Intubations in the Operating Room#1113273
Record · ID 1085680
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive