A comparison of the STORZ video laryngoscope and standard direct laryngoscopy for intubation in the Pediatric airway – a randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Direct laryngoscopy can be challenging in infants and neonates. Even with an optimal line of sight to the glottic opening, the viewing angle has been measured at 15 degrees . The STORZ DCI video laryngoscope (Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany) incorporates a fiberoptic camera in the light source of a standard laryngoscope of variable sizes. The image is displayed on a screen with a viewing angle of 80 degrees . We studied the effectiveness of the STORZ DCI as an airway tool compared to standard direct laryngoscopy in children with normal airway. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized study, 56 children (ages 4 years or younger) undergoing elective surgery with the need for endotracheal intubation were divided into two groups: children who underwent standard direct laryngoscopy using a Miller 1 or Macintosh 2 blade (DL) and children who underwent video laryngoscopy using the STORZ DCI video laryngoscope with a Miller 1 blade (VL). Time to best view (TTBV), time to intubate (TTI), Cormack-Lehane (CL), and percentage of glottis opening seen (POGO) score were recorded. RESULTS: TTBV in DL was 5.5 (4-8) s and 7 (4.2-9) s in VL. TTI in DL was 21 (17-29) s and in VL 27 (22-37) s (P = 0.006). The view as assessed by POGO score was 97.5% (60-100%) in DL and 100% (100-100%) in the VL (P = 0.003). Data are presented as median and interquartile range and analyzed using t-test. DISCUSSION: This study demonstrates that the STORZ DCI video laryngoscope provides an improved view to the glottis in children with normal airway anatomy, but requires a longer time for intubation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".