Airway topicalisation in morbidly obese patients using atomised lidocaine: 2% compared with 4%*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated the technique of airway anaesthesia using atomised lidocaine for awake oral fibreoptic intubation in morbidly obese patients using two doses of local anaesthetic. Morbidly obese patients were allocated to receive either 2% or 4% lidocaine (40 ml) for oral airway anaesthesia using an atomiser with high oxygen flow. Patients were carefully sedated using midazolam and fentanyl. Outcomes included patient tolerance to airway manipulation, haemodynamic parameters, and serial plasma lidocaine concentrations. In all, 27 patients were enrolled in the study (2% cohort n = 14, 4% cohort n = 13). Patient characteristics and time for topicalisation and airway management were similar. Haemodynamic parameters did not change significantly. Tolerance to insertion of the Ovassapian airway, bronchoscopy, and tracheal tube positioning was excellent (12 vs 12 patients, 12 vs 12 patients, and 8 vs 12 patients had no response, respectively, 2% vs 4%). Differences did not reach statistical significance. Peak plasma lidocaine concentration was significantly lower in the 2% group (2.8 (0.8) microg.ml(-1) compared with 6.5 (1.0) microg.ml(-1), p < 0.05). Airway anaesthesia using atomised lidocaine for awake fibreoptic intubation in the morbidly obese is efficacious, rapid, and safe. Compared with 4% lidocaine, the 2% dose provides acceptable intubating conditions in most cases and produces lower plasma lidocaine levels.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".