MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Use of the Airtraq® Laryngoscope

2007· letter· en· W2023831150 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Steven M. Neustein

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesiology · 2007
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLaryngoscopesAnesthesiaIntubationLaryngoscopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, New York. steve.neustein@msnyuhealth.orgI read with interest the case report by Dhonneur et al. 1describing their use of the Airtraq® laryngoscope (AL; Prodol Meditec S.A., Vizcaya, Spain) in morbidly obese patients undergoing emergency cesarean delivery. I congratulate these authors on the incorporation of this recently introduced intubating device into their practice. However, there is surprisingly little discussion of the actual AL in their article.The AL is a disposable laryngoscope that allows viewing of the vocal cords without a straight line of sight from outside of the patient to the vocal cords. The AL light should be turned on approximately 1 min before use, to allow heating of the lens and to avoid fogging. The neck of the patient can be positioned in a neutral position. The curved blade is inserted in the center of the tongue. While looking through the viewer (or optional video), it is advanced further such that the epiglottis is identified, and the tip is placed into the vallecula. The handle is then lifted straight up to expose the vocal cords. The AL has a channel that is used to direct the tube through the vocal cords once visualization has been achieved. I have successfully used the AL, and one important difficulty that was not stated in the letter is that the tube may pass posteriorly as it leaves its guide, and further manipulation of the handle of the AL may be needed to allow the endotracheal tube to be successfully passed through the vocal cords.An important issue not discussed by the authors is the challenge of obtaining proficiency while at the same time controlling cost. The manufacturer recommends two to four uses before use in a patient with a difficult intubation. As in all techniques for intubation, there is a learning curve. ALs cost approximately $80 each and cannot be reused. This could pose a large expense to train an entire department and then maintain skills. It could also be a major ongoing expense if used frequently. If skills could be obtained in a simulator, the AL could be an important asset if kept on the difficult airway cart as a backup technique, but not used regularly. Obtaining the AL was discussed by our equipment committee but was not thought to be cost-effective for training an entire department, which has more than 100 members. Dhonneur et al. 1stated that the anesthesiologists had “performed the clinical learning process with the AL” but did not describe what this was; this information would have been helpful.The authors state that “There are only two validated airway devices allowing visualization of the glottis without alignment of oral and pharyngeal axes: the LMA CTrach (SEBAC, Pantin, France) and the AL.” This is not true; there are multiple such laryngoscopes now available. The Glide scope (Saturn Biomedical, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada) is a nondisposable video laryngoscope that is easy to use and allows visualization of the vocal cords without alignment of the axes. The endotracheal tube is held in the right hand and can be manipulated independently from the laryngoscope. The first laryngoscope developed, which combined fiberoptic viewing with a curved rigid blade, was the Bullard laryngoscope (Circon ACMI, Stamford, CT).The authors also stated that the Sellick maneuver was applied before induction; this would potentially be uncomfortable for the patient. The cricoid should be palpated before induction, but the actual cricoid pressure should not be applied until the patient is starting to fall asleep. It has been recommended to apply 10 N (1 kg) of pressure as the patient is falling asleep and increase to 30 N after the patient becomes unconscious.2Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, New York. steve.neustein@msnyuhealth.org

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.009

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesiologySame topicAirway Management and Intubation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207