The Effect of Laryngoscope Handle Size on Possible Endotracheal Intubation Success in University Football, Ice Hockey, and Soccer Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of a standard long-handle laryngoscope and a short-handle laryngoscope on ease of possible intubation in football, ice hockey, and soccer players. DESIGN: Prospective crossover study. SETTING: University Sport Medicine Clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-two university varsity football (62 males), 45 ice hockey (26 males and 19 females), and 39 soccer players (20 males, 19 females). INTERVENTIONS: Athletes were assessed for different airway and physical characteristics. Three different physicians then assessed the use of laryngoscopes of different handle sizes in supine athletes who were wearing protective equipment while in-line cervical spine immobilization was maintained. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The ease of passage of a laryngoscope blade into the posterior oropharynx of a supine athlete was assessed using both a standard long-handle and a short-handle laryngoscope. RESULTS: Use of a short-handle laryngoscope was easier for all physicians in all sports as compared with a standard-sized laryngoscope. Passage of a laryngoscope blade into the posterior oropharynx of a supine athlete was easiest in soccer players and most difficult in football and ice hockey players for both sizes of laryngoscope. Interference from chest or shoulder pads was a common cause for difficulty in passing the laryngoscope blade into the posterior oropharynx for football and ice hockey players. CONCLUSIONS: In the rare instances that an endotracheal intubation is to be attempted on an unconscious athlete, a short-handle laryngoscope may provide the best chance for successful 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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".