MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084615897 · doi:10.1213/ane.0b013e318161769e

Cervical Spine Motion During Tracheal Intubation with Manual In-Line Stabilization: Direct Laryngoscopy versus GlideScope® Videolaryngoscopy

2008· article· en· W2084615897 on OpenAlexaff
Arnaud Robitaille, Stephan Williams, Marie‐Hélène Tremblay, F Guilbert, Mélanie Thériault, Pierre Drolet

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsHôpital Notre-Dame
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntubationGlottisOcciputLaryngoscopyAnesthesiaTracheal intubationAirwayCervical spineSurgeryLarynx

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The optimal tracheal intubation technique for patients with potential cervical (C) spine injury remains controversial. Using continuous cinefluoroscopy, we conducted a prospective study comparing C-spine movement during intubation using direct laryngoscopy (DL) or GlideScope videolaryngoscopy (GVL), with uninterrupted manual in-line stabilization of the head by an assistant. METHODS: Twenty patients without C-spine pathology were studied. After induction of general anesthesia with neuromuscular blockade, both DL and GVL were performed on every patient in random order. Cinefluoroscopic images of C-spine movement during GVL and DL were acquired and divided into four stages: a baseline image before airway manipulation, glottic visualization, insertion of the endotracheal tube into the glottis, and tracheal intubation. Peak segmental motion from the occiput to C5 was measured offline for each patient and each stage, averages were calculated, and movements induced by each instrument were compared using a two-way ANOVA. Also studied were the proportion of patients with occiput-C1 rotation exceeding 10, 15, or 20 degrees, and the quality of glottic visualization. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between DL and GVL regarding average segmental spine movement at any level (P values between 0.22 and 0.70). During both techniques, motion was mainly an extension concentrated in the rostral C-spine and occurred predominantly during glottic visualization. The proportion of patients with occiput-C1 extension of more than 10, 15, or 20 degrees was not significantly different. Glottic visualization was significantly better with GVL compared with DL. CONCLUSION: During intubation under general anesthesia with neuromuscular blockade and manual in-line stabilization, the use of GVL produced better glottic visualization, but did not significantly decrease movement of the nonpathologic C-spine when compared with DL.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations190
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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