Use of Endotracheal Tube Electrodes in Treating Glossopharyngeal Neuralgia: Technical Note
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: This paper describes the use of endotracheal tube surface electrodes to help delineate the sensory and motor vagal rootlets which may be sacrificed during the surgical treatment of glossopharyngeal neuralgia. METHODS: Three patients with glossopharyngeal neuralgia were studied. All patients had their procedure under general anesthesia and a nerve integrity monitor electromyography endotracheal tube (Medtronic Xomed, Jacksonville, Fla., USA) was inserted under direct vision by the anesthesiologist. A bipolar stimulating electrode identified which, if any, of the upper rootlets of the vagus nerve caused a motor contraction near the vocal cords (i.e. motor branch) and which did not cause contractions (i.e. sensory branch). Sectioning of the glossopharyngeal and any purely sensory rootlets of the vagus nerve was subsequently performed. RESULTS: All patients had immediate and long-lasting relief of their glossopharyngeal neuralgia. In all 3 patients, use of the bipolar stimulating electrode on the lower vagal rootlets induced a recordable muscle action potential in the region of the vocal cords with low current (<0.2 mA). There were no complications consequent to placement of the nerve integrity monitor endotracheal tube. CONCLUSION: Due to the ease of use and reduced trauma, compared to needle electrodes, we would advocate endotracheal tube surface electrode monitoring in all patients undergoing surgical treatment of their glossopharyngeal neuralgia or any intracranial procedure where the integrity of the vagal nerve is in jeopardy.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".