Effects of Neck Position and Head Elevation on Intracranial Pressure in Anaesthetized Neurosurgical Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study reports the collective effect of the positions of the operating table, head, and neck on intracranial pressure (ICP) of 15 adult patients scheduled for elective intracerebral surgery. Patients were anesthetized with propofol, fentanyl, and maintained with a propofol infusion and fentanyl. Intracranial pressure was recorded following 20 minutes of stabilization after induction at different table positions (neutral, 30 degrees head up, 30 degrees head down) with the patient's neck either 1) straight in the axis of the body, 2) flexed, or 3) extended, and in the five following head positions: a) head straight, b) head angled at 45 degrees to the right, c) head angled at 45 degrees to the left, d) head rotated to the right, or e) head rotated the left. For ethical reasons, only patients with ICP < or = 20 mm Hg were included. Intracranial pressure increased every time the head was in a nonneutral position. The most important and statistically significant increases in ICP were recorded when the table was in a 30 degree Trendelenburg position with the head straight or rotated to the right or left, or every time the head was flexed and rotated to the right or left-whatever the position of the table was. These observations suggest that patients with known compromised cerebral compliance would benefit from monitoring ICP during positioning, if the use of a lumbar drainage is planed to improve venous return, cerebral blood volume, ICP, and overall operating conditions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".