MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998691851 · doi:10.4103/1658-354x.121072

Airway management for oral surgery in a patient with repaired cleft palate

2013· article· en· W1998691851 on OpenAlexaff
SachidanandJee Bharati, Tumul Chowdhury

Bibliographic record

VenueSaudi Journal of Anaesthesia · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCleft Lip and Palate Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAirwayAirway managementDentistrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sir, Sharing airway with surgeon is always challenging for anesthesiologist. However, the preexisting airway defect would certainly add more problems to it. Here, we have highlighted such an issue in patient with preexisting palatal defect who was posted for oral surgery. Otherwise healthy female was diagnosed as a case of benign growth of tongue and scheduled for wide local excision of right lateral border of tongue. She had been operated for repair of cleft palate at the age of 18 month and still had a peanut size defect in the midline of soft palate. There was neither an associated upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) nor airway obstruction like symptoms. Surgical procedure required nasal intubation for the case; however, in view of existing soft palate defect, a decisive dilemma emerged regarding the management of airway. Standard monitors were attached. After standard anesthetic induction, nasal intubation was carefully performed through left nostril and trachea was intubated with 7.5 mm flexomettalic tube under fibreoptic bronchoscopy (FOB). A Ryle's tube was also inserted under Glidoscope view without causing injury to soft palate. Rest of the intraoperative course was uneventful and at the completion of surgery, trachea was extubated. The patient was shifted to postoperative recovery unit. In general, nasal intubation is not advocated in patients with previous cleft palate surgery in childhood and even if it is required then it has to done on the opposite side of defect.[12] Since the defect is in midline in our case and nasal intubation was required, we opted for intubation using FOB. The alternate method of intubation is also described in the literature.[2] The anatomy of the nasopharynx as well as oropharynx usually gets altered after the cleft palate repair and increases the difficulty during nasotracheal intubation.[3] It also carries a risk of damage to the repaired palatal defect. Although considered being a gold standard, FOB has its own limitations in such conditions. It requires the expertise to assess the size of the nasopharyngeal ports and passing the scope into the oropharynx without further traumatizing the nasopharyngeal structures. Moreover, in conditions with secretions and bleeding, it becomes difficult to visualize by FOB. In summary, airway management in patients with previous cleft palate surgery will always be a challenge for the anesthesiologist and will influence the method of airway control. Thorough preoperative assessment to rule out persisting palatal defect coupled with judicious implementation of knowledge and skill is needed to avert the unwanted complication.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0070.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueSaudi Journal of AnaesthesiaSame topicCleft Lip and Palate ResearchFrench-language works237,207