MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976138008 · doi:10.1213/ane.0b013e31819c60a1

A Comparison of Cervical Spine Motion During Orotracheal Intubation with the Trachlight® or the Flexible Fiberoptic Bronchoscope

2009· article· en· W1976138008 on OpenAlexaff
Bryan J. Houde, Stephan Williams, Alexandre Cadrin-Chênevert, F Guilbert, Pierre Drolet

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontHôpital Notre-Dame
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntubationOcciputCervical spineAnesthesiaOrotracheal intubationStyletLaryngoscopySurgerySagittal planeTracheal intubationRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Tracheal intubation of an unstable cervical spine (c-spine) patient with the flexible fiberoptic bronchoscope (FOB) is thought to minimize c-spine movement but may be technically difficult in certain patients. Intubation using a luminous stylet, such as the Trachlight(R) (TL), also produces minimal motion of the c-spine and may be an interesting alternative technique for patients with an unstable c-spine. In this study, we compared the cervical motion caused by the TL and the FOB during intubation. METHODS: Twenty patients with a normal c-spine undergoing general anesthesia, including neuromuscular blockade, for a neuroradiologic intervention were included in a prospective, randomized, controlled, nonblinded, crossover trial. Each patient was tracheally intubated sequentially with the TL and the FOB in a randomized order. Manual in-line stabilization was applied by an assistant during intubation. The motions produced by intubation from the occiput (C0) to C5 were recorded in the sagittal plane using continuous cinefluoroscopy. For movement analysis, the recordings were divided into four stages: "baseline" before intubation began; "introduction" of the intubation device; "intubation" (passage of the tube through the vocal cords); and "removal" of the device. For each intubating device, the average maximal segmental motion observed in every patient at any stage or cervical segment was calculated and compared using Student's t-test. The time required to intubate with each device was also compared. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the mean maximum segmental motion produced during intubation with the TL versus the FOB (12 degrees +/- 6 degrees vs 11 degrees +/- 5 degrees ; P = 0.5). Segmental movements occurred predominantly at the C0-1 and C1-2 levels, and maximal movements were observed during the introduction stage in 18/20 patients for both devices. Intubation took less time with the TL (34 +/- 17 vs 60 +/- 15 s, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In patients under general anesthesia with neuromuscular blockade and manual in-line stabilization, we found no difference in the segmental c-spine motion produced during endotracheal intubation using the FOB and the TL.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.792
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicAirway Management and Intubation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207