Loading…
Comparison of a new visual stylet (Discopo)–guided laryngeal mask airway placement vs conventional blind technique: a prospective randomized study
Abstract Study Objective To compare the ease of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion and fiberoptic view of LMA after placement using the Discopo visual stylet–guided insertion and conventional blind technique. Design Prospective, randomized controlled study. Setting Operating room in a university...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of clinical anesthesia 2016-12, Vol.35, p.85-89 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c554t-3bcea68cc54f3c503b941699657d6190e1f36d1f8a04dbfba6b9caeed26d17923 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c554t-3bcea68cc54f3c503b941699657d6190e1f36d1f8a04dbfba6b9caeed26d17923 |
container_end_page | 89 |
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 85 |
container_title | Journal of clinical anesthesia |
container_volume | 35 |
creator | Zhao, Linlin, MD Zhang, Junfeng, MD, PhD Zhou, Quanhong, MD, PhD Jiang, Wei, MD, PhD |
description | Abstract Study Objective To compare the ease of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion and fiberoptic view of LMA after placement using the Discopo visual stylet–guided insertion and conventional blind technique. Design Prospective, randomized controlled study. Setting Operating room in a university hospital. Patients One hundred adult patients scheduled for elective surgery under LMA general anesthesia were enrolled. Interventions Patients were randomly allocated to 2 groups: GLMA group using a visual stylet–guided technique (n = 50) and BLMA group using standard blind technique (n = 50). Correct placement of the LMA was confirmed using clinical test along with fiberoptic assessment. Measurements Unblinded data were collected about the insertion time, the first attempt success rate, the LMA position adjustment rate, fiberoptic view of LMA anatomical position, hemodynamic responses, and the adverse insertion responses (bucking, breathholding, and laryngospasm). Blinded data were recorded about postoperative airway morbidity (visible blood staining on LMA at removal, sore throat, and hoarseness). Main results Insertion was more frequently successful at the first attempt in GLMA than that in BLMA group (100% vs 92%; P = .041). The time taken for establishing effective airway was shorter in GLMA than that in BLMA (54.8 vs 62.9 seconds; P = .001). The patients in BLMA group required more readjustment and reinsertion than those in GLMA group (38% vs 0%; P = .000). The fiberoptic view was significantly better in GLMA group ( P < .001). No difference between the 2 groups existed regarding hemodynamic stress responses, incidences of adverse insertion responses, and postoperative airway morbidity. Conclusions By direct visualizing the whole process of LMA insertion, the Discopo visual stylet increases the success rate and accuracy rate of LMA placement without increasing hemodynamic stress response or incidences of adverse events. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jclinane.2016.06.022 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1846418049</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0952818016302975</els_id><sourcerecordid>1846418049</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c554t-3bcea68cc54f3c503b941699657d6190e1f36d1f8a04dbfba6b9caeed26d17923</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkstu1TAQhiMEoofCK1SW2JRFDraTODELBDpcpUosgLXl2JPi08QOcZIqrPoO5Ql5EiY6LUjdgDSSb59_j_-ZJDlhdMsoE8_3271pndcethzXW4rB-b1kw6oyS_OCy_vJhsqCpxWr6FHyKMY9pRQP2MPkiJdVyQSlm-TnLnS9HlwMnoSGaOLhkswuTrolcVxaGMnpGxdN6MOzX1fX55OzYEmrh8WfAzKdjhdEu-FSL6RvtYEO_EjmSEzwM05d8EjVmKolI5hv3n2f4AW-0w8h9mBGNwMZtLehcz9QOY6TXR4nDxrdRnhyMx4nX9-9_bL7kJ59ev9x9_osNUWRj2lWG9CiMqbIm8wUNKtlzoSUoiitYJICazJhWVNpmtu6qbWopdEAluNuKXl2nJwedDEZTCuOqsOvQtuirWGKilW5yNG-XP4PygspGS8RfXoH3YdpQBsOggjyXCAlDpRBI-IAjeoH16GvilG1lljt1W2J1VpiRTH4mvTJjfxUd2D_XLutKQKvDgCgdbODQUXjwBuwbkDDlQ3u32-8vCOxUs7o9gIWiH__oyJXVH1eG23tMyYyymVZZL8BPPLTXg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1846842246</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of a new visual stylet (Discopo)–guided laryngeal mask airway placement vs conventional blind technique: a prospective randomized study</title><source>ScienceDirect Freedom Collection</source><creator>Zhao, Linlin, MD ; Zhang, Junfeng, MD, PhD ; Zhou, Quanhong, MD, PhD ; Jiang, Wei, MD, PhD</creator><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Linlin, MD ; Zhang, Junfeng, MD, PhD ; Zhou, Quanhong, MD, PhD ; Jiang, Wei, MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Study Objective To compare the ease of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion and fiberoptic view of LMA after placement using the Discopo visual stylet–guided insertion and conventional blind technique. Design Prospective, randomized controlled study. Setting Operating room in a university hospital. Patients One hundred adult patients scheduled for elective surgery under LMA general anesthesia were enrolled. Interventions Patients were randomly allocated to 2 groups: GLMA group using a visual stylet–guided technique (n = 50) and BLMA group using standard blind technique (n = 50). Correct placement of the LMA was confirmed using clinical test along with fiberoptic assessment. Measurements Unblinded data were collected about the insertion time, the first attempt success rate, the LMA position adjustment rate, fiberoptic view of LMA anatomical position, hemodynamic responses, and the adverse insertion responses (bucking, breathholding, and laryngospasm). Blinded data were recorded about postoperative airway morbidity (visible blood staining on LMA at removal, sore throat, and hoarseness). Main results Insertion was more frequently successful at the first attempt in GLMA than that in BLMA group (100% vs 92%; P = .041). The time taken for establishing effective airway was shorter in GLMA than that in BLMA (54.8 vs 62.9 seconds; P = .001). The patients in BLMA group required more readjustment and reinsertion than those in GLMA group (38% vs 0%; P = .000). The fiberoptic view was significantly better in GLMA group ( P < .001). No difference between the 2 groups existed regarding hemodynamic stress responses, incidences of adverse insertion responses, and postoperative airway morbidity. Conclusions By direct visualizing the whole process of LMA insertion, the Discopo visual stylet increases the success rate and accuracy rate of LMA placement without increasing hemodynamic stress response or incidences of adverse events.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0952-8180</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-4529</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2016.06.022</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27871600</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Airway management ; Anesthesia ; Anesthesia & Perioperative Care ; Anesthesia, General - methods ; Elective Surgical Procedures ; Female ; Fiber Optic Technology ; Hemodynamics ; Humans ; Insertion ; Intubation ; Intubation, Intratracheal - adverse effects ; Intubation, Intratracheal - instrumentation ; Intubation, Intratracheal - methods ; Laryngeal mask airway ; Laryngeal Masks - adverse effects ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Pain Medicine ; Patients ; Pharynx - injuries ; Prospective Studies ; Random Allocation ; Success ; Time Factors ; Visual stylet</subject><ispartof>Journal of clinical anesthesia, 2016-12, Vol.35, p.85-89</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2016 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Limited Dec 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c554t-3bcea68cc54f3c503b941699657d6190e1f36d1f8a04dbfba6b9caeed26d17923</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c554t-3bcea68cc54f3c503b941699657d6190e1f36d1f8a04dbfba6b9caeed26d17923</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27871600$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Linlin, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Junfeng, MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhou, Quanhong, MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jiang, Wei, MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of a new visual stylet (Discopo)–guided laryngeal mask airway placement vs conventional blind technique: a prospective randomized study</title><title>Journal of clinical anesthesia</title><addtitle>J Clin Anesth</addtitle><description>Abstract Study Objective To compare the ease of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion and fiberoptic view of LMA after placement using the Discopo visual stylet–guided insertion and conventional blind technique. Design Prospective, randomized controlled study. Setting Operating room in a university hospital. Patients One hundred adult patients scheduled for elective surgery under LMA general anesthesia were enrolled. Interventions Patients were randomly allocated to 2 groups: GLMA group using a visual stylet–guided technique (n = 50) and BLMA group using standard blind technique (n = 50). Correct placement of the LMA was confirmed using clinical test along with fiberoptic assessment. Measurements Unblinded data were collected about the insertion time, the first attempt success rate, the LMA position adjustment rate, fiberoptic view of LMA anatomical position, hemodynamic responses, and the adverse insertion responses (bucking, breathholding, and laryngospasm). Blinded data were recorded about postoperative airway morbidity (visible blood staining on LMA at removal, sore throat, and hoarseness). Main results Insertion was more frequently successful at the first attempt in GLMA than that in BLMA group (100% vs 92%; P = .041). The time taken for establishing effective airway was shorter in GLMA than that in BLMA (54.8 vs 62.9 seconds; P = .001). The patients in BLMA group required more readjustment and reinsertion than those in GLMA group (38% vs 0%; P = .000). The fiberoptic view was significantly better in GLMA group ( P < .001). No difference between the 2 groups existed regarding hemodynamic stress responses, incidences of adverse insertion responses, and postoperative airway morbidity. Conclusions By direct visualizing the whole process of LMA insertion, the Discopo visual stylet increases the success rate and accuracy rate of LMA placement without increasing hemodynamic stress response or incidences of adverse events.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Airway management</subject><subject>Anesthesia</subject><subject>Anesthesia & Perioperative Care</subject><subject>Anesthesia, General - methods</subject><subject>Elective Surgical Procedures</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fiber Optic Technology</subject><subject>Hemodynamics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Insertion</subject><subject>Intubation</subject><subject>Intubation, Intratracheal - adverse effects</subject><subject>Intubation, Intratracheal - instrumentation</subject><subject>Intubation, Intratracheal - methods</subject><subject>Laryngeal mask airway</subject><subject>Laryngeal Masks - adverse effects</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Pain Medicine</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Pharynx - injuries</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Random Allocation</subject><subject>Success</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Visual stylet</subject><issn>0952-8180</issn><issn>1873-4529</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkstu1TAQhiMEoofCK1SW2JRFDraTODELBDpcpUosgLXl2JPi08QOcZIqrPoO5Ql5EiY6LUjdgDSSb59_j_-ZJDlhdMsoE8_3271pndcethzXW4rB-b1kw6oyS_OCy_vJhsqCpxWr6FHyKMY9pRQP2MPkiJdVyQSlm-TnLnS9HlwMnoSGaOLhkswuTrolcVxaGMnpGxdN6MOzX1fX55OzYEmrh8WfAzKdjhdEu-FSL6RvtYEO_EjmSEzwM05d8EjVmKolI5hv3n2f4AW-0w8h9mBGNwMZtLehcz9QOY6TXR4nDxrdRnhyMx4nX9-9_bL7kJ59ev9x9_osNUWRj2lWG9CiMqbIm8wUNKtlzoSUoiitYJICazJhWVNpmtu6qbWopdEAluNuKXl2nJwedDEZTCuOqsOvQtuirWGKilW5yNG-XP4PygspGS8RfXoH3YdpQBsOggjyXCAlDpRBI-IAjeoH16GvilG1lljt1W2J1VpiRTH4mvTJjfxUd2D_XLutKQKvDgCgdbODQUXjwBuwbkDDlQ3u32-8vCOxUs7o9gIWiH__oyJXVH1eG23tMyYyymVZZL8BPPLTXg</recordid><startdate>20161201</startdate><enddate>20161201</enddate><creator>Zhao, Linlin, MD</creator><creator>Zhang, Junfeng, MD, PhD</creator><creator>Zhou, Quanhong, MD, PhD</creator><creator>Jiang, Wei, MD, PhD</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20161201</creationdate><title>Comparison of a new visual stylet (Discopo)–guided laryngeal mask airway placement vs conventional blind technique: a prospective randomized study</title><author>Zhao, Linlin, MD ; Zhang, Junfeng, MD, PhD ; Zhou, Quanhong, MD, PhD ; Jiang, Wei, MD, PhD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c554t-3bcea68cc54f3c503b941699657d6190e1f36d1f8a04dbfba6b9caeed26d17923</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Airway management</topic><topic>Anesthesia</topic><topic>Anesthesia & Perioperative Care</topic><topic>Anesthesia, General - methods</topic><topic>Elective Surgical Procedures</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fiber Optic Technology</topic><topic>Hemodynamics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Insertion</topic><topic>Intubation</topic><topic>Intubation, Intratracheal - adverse effects</topic><topic>Intubation, Intratracheal - instrumentation</topic><topic>Intubation, Intratracheal - methods</topic><topic>Laryngeal mask airway</topic><topic>Laryngeal Masks - adverse effects</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Pain Medicine</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Pharynx - injuries</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Random Allocation</topic><topic>Success</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Visual stylet</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Linlin, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Junfeng, MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhou, Quanhong, MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jiang, Wei, MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of clinical anesthesia</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zhao, Linlin, MD</au><au>Zhang, Junfeng, MD, PhD</au><au>Zhou, Quanhong, MD, PhD</au><au>Jiang, Wei, MD, PhD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of a new visual stylet (Discopo)–guided laryngeal mask airway placement vs conventional blind technique: a prospective randomized study</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical anesthesia</jtitle><addtitle>J Clin Anesth</addtitle><date>2016-12-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>35</volume><spage>85</spage><epage>89</epage><pages>85-89</pages><issn>0952-8180</issn><eissn>1873-4529</eissn><abstract>Abstract Study Objective To compare the ease of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion and fiberoptic view of LMA after placement using the Discopo visual stylet–guided insertion and conventional blind technique. Design Prospective, randomized controlled study. Setting Operating room in a university hospital. Patients One hundred adult patients scheduled for elective surgery under LMA general anesthesia were enrolled. Interventions Patients were randomly allocated to 2 groups: GLMA group using a visual stylet–guided technique (n = 50) and BLMA group using standard blind technique (n = 50). Correct placement of the LMA was confirmed using clinical test along with fiberoptic assessment. Measurements Unblinded data were collected about the insertion time, the first attempt success rate, the LMA position adjustment rate, fiberoptic view of LMA anatomical position, hemodynamic responses, and the adverse insertion responses (bucking, breathholding, and laryngospasm). Blinded data were recorded about postoperative airway morbidity (visible blood staining on LMA at removal, sore throat, and hoarseness). Main results Insertion was more frequently successful at the first attempt in GLMA than that in BLMA group (100% vs 92%; P = .041). The time taken for establishing effective airway was shorter in GLMA than that in BLMA (54.8 vs 62.9 seconds; P = .001). The patients in BLMA group required more readjustment and reinsertion than those in GLMA group (38% vs 0%; P = .000). The fiberoptic view was significantly better in GLMA group ( P < .001). No difference between the 2 groups existed regarding hemodynamic stress responses, incidences of adverse insertion responses, and postoperative airway morbidity. Conclusions By direct visualizing the whole process of LMA insertion, the Discopo visual stylet increases the success rate and accuracy rate of LMA placement without increasing hemodynamic stress response or incidences of adverse events.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>27871600</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jclinane.2016.06.022</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0952-8180 |
ispartof | Journal of clinical anesthesia, 2016-12, Vol.35, p.85-89 |
issn | 0952-8180 1873-4529 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1846418049 |
source | ScienceDirect Freedom Collection |
subjects | Adult Airway management Anesthesia Anesthesia & Perioperative Care Anesthesia, General - methods Elective Surgical Procedures Female Fiber Optic Technology Hemodynamics Humans Insertion Intubation Intubation, Intratracheal - adverse effects Intubation, Intratracheal - instrumentation Intubation, Intratracheal - methods Laryngeal mask airway Laryngeal Masks - adverse effects Male Middle Aged Pain Medicine Patients Pharynx - injuries Prospective Studies Random Allocation Success Time Factors Visual stylet |
title | Comparison of a new visual stylet (Discopo)–guided laryngeal mask airway placement vs conventional blind technique: a prospective randomized study |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T04%3A06%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20a%20new%20visual%20stylet%20(Discopo)%E2%80%93guided%20laryngeal%20mask%20airway%20placement%20vs%20conventional%20blind%20technique:%20a%20prospective%20randomized%20study&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20anesthesia&rft.au=Zhao,%20Linlin,%20MD&rft.date=2016-12-01&rft.volume=35&rft.spage=85&rft.epage=89&rft.pages=85-89&rft.issn=0952-8180&rft.eissn=1873-4529&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jclinane.2016.06.022&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1846418049%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c554t-3bcea68cc54f3c503b941699657d6190e1f36d1f8a04dbfba6b9caeed26d17923%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1846842246&rft_id=info:pmid/27871600&rfr_iscdi=true |