MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Glidescope Video Laryngoscope is Useful in Exchanging Endotracheal Tubes

2006· letter· en· W2028459825 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Peral, Elena Porcar, Jorge Bellver, Jos Higueras, X. Onrubia, Manuel Barber

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2006
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaLaryngoscopyTracheal tubeFentanylIntubationAirwaySurgeryCatheter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor: A 34-year-old man (182 cm tall, 128 kg weight) was scheduled for excision of a vocal cord tumor. The patient had a Mallampati Class 2 airway with an interincisor distance of 5 cm and adequate neck extension. Following induction of anesthesia with fentanyl, propofol, and succinylcholine, we performed laryngoscopy using a Macintosh blade and obtained a Cormack–Lehane Grade 3 view of the vocal cords. A small tracheal tube for laser surgery (internal diameter of 5.5 mm) was placed. Postoperatively, the patient's ventilation deteriorated with an increase in mean inspiratory pressure from 15 to 35 cm H2O and diffuse wheezing. We administered salbutamol and methylprednisolone and transferred the patient to the intensive care unit. There, the endotracheal tube was exchanged for a larger one under direct visual control with the GlideScope video laryngoscope (Saturn Biomedical System, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada). A few minutes later, we heard an air leak, and we noticed that the endotracheal tube pilot balloon was deflated. We exchanged the endotracheal tube by means of an airway exchange catheter, again using the Glidescope to guide us. On both occasions, we obtained a Cormack– Lehane Grade 1 view of the vocal cords. Replacing an endotracheal tube in a patient with compromised oxygenation is potentially dangerous. However, because the endotracheal tube exchange failed (1) and serious complications from using an airway exchange catheter (2) have been reported, we recommend the GlideScope for endotracheal tube exchanges. It has several features that are useful in managing difficult airways. First, an embedded antifogging mechanism prevents clouding of the image on the video display. Second, the 60° angle blade provides a minimally distorted view of the supraglottic anatomy. Third, the GlideScope's design is similar to that of a conventional laryngoscope, making it easy for conventional laryngoscope users to use. Finally, some studies have shown that the GlideScope improves the laryngoscopic view (3–5). In our patient, the GlideScope view was two Cormack–Lehane grades higher than that obtained with a Macintosh blade and a conventional laryngoscope. The GlideScope is useful for airway management, including endotracheal tube exchanges in the intensive care unit. David Peral, MD Elena Porcar, MD Jorge Bellver, MD José Higueras, MD Xavier Onrubia, MD Manuel Barberá, PhD Hospital Doctor Peset Valencia, Spain [email protected]

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0140.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations15
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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