Management of the Airway in Patients Undergoing Cervical Spine Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The perioperative management of the airway in patients with cervical spine disease requires careful consideration. In an observational prospective cohort study, we assessed the preoperative factors that may have influenced the anesthesiologists' choice for the technique of intubation and the incidence of postoperative airway complications. We recorded information from 327 patients: mean (+/-SD) age 51+/-15 year, 138 females and 189 males, for anterior surgical approach (n=195) and posterior (n=132). The technique of intubation used was awake fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB) in 39% (n=128), asleep FOB 32% (n=103), asleep laryngoscopy 22% (n=72), and other asleep 7% (n=24). Awake FOB was predominately chosen for intubating patients with myelopathy (45%), unstable/fractured spine (73%), and spinal stenosis (55%) but patients with radiculopathy had more asleep FOB (49%) (P<0.001). There was no association between method of intubation and postoperative airway complications. Acute postoperative airway obstruction occurred in 4 (1.2%) patients requiring reintubation. The technique of management of the airway for cervical spine surgery varied considerably among the anesthesiologists, although the choice was not associated with postoperative airway complications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".