A novel method for laryngeal mask airway size selection in paediatric patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: The successful use of the laryngeal mask airway in children partly depends on the correct selection of size. Most anaesthesiologists rely on the weight-based table which is often difficult to remember. A simple method allowing an adequate choice of the correct size may be highly desirable. OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that the size of the external ear (pinna) of the child may be used as proxy for the required size of laryngeal mask airway. DESIGN: A descriptive study. SETTING: King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. PATIENTS: Two hundred and ten paediatric patients aged 6 months to 15 years, of either sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) 1-2 and scheduled for routine ophthalmological procedures from 1 March to 31 December 2010. Emergency cases, patients with a full stomach or with a history of any oropharyngeal lesion other than tonsillar hypertrophy were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The size of the external ear was measured with a ruler in vertical and horizontal dimensions in the first 30 patients, and visually evaluated for the remaining patients. For all, the nearest corresponding size of partially inflated laryngeal mask airway was chosen and inserted after induction. The correct placement was assessed using predefined criteria. RESULTS: Insertion and good ventilation was achieved in 196 (93.3%) on first attempt. Fourteen patients (6.7%) required a second attempt and the main reason for failure was an audible leak because of smaller size. CONCLUSION: Choosing the size of the laryngeal mask airway in children according to the size of the external ear was associated with a success rate of 93% which is comparable with that reported in the literature when the tables are used. This simple method may allow a rapid choice of the correct size of laryngeal mask airway and may eliminate the need to remember different tables or formulae.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".