Atomised lidocaine for airway topical anaesthesia in the morbidly obese: 1% compared with 2%*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Airway anaesthesia using atomised lidocaine for awake oral fibreoptic intubation in morbidly obese patients was evaluated using two doses of local anaesthetic. In this randomised, blinded prospective study, 40 ml of atomised 1% (n = 11) or 2% (n = 10) lidocaine was administered with high oxygen flow as carrier. Outcomes included time for intubation, patient tolerance to airway manipulation, haemodynamic parameters, the bronchoscopist's overall satisfaction, and serial serum lidocaine concentrations. Patients receiving lidocaine 1% had a longer mean (SD) time from the start of topicalisation to tracheal tube cuff inflation than those receiving lidocaine 2% (8.6 (0.9) min vs 6.9 (0.5) min, respectively; p < 0.05). Patients in the 1% cohort demonstrated increased responses to airway manipulation (p < 0.0001), reflecting lower bronchoscopist's satisfaction scores (p < 0.03). Haemodynamic responses to topicalisation and airway manipulation were similar in both groups. Peak plasma concentration was lower in the 1% group (mean (SD) 1.4 (0.3) and 3.8 (0.5) microg.ml(-1), respectively; p < 0.001). Airway anaesthesia using atomised lidocaine for awake oral fibreoptic intubation in the morbidly obese is efficacious, rapid and safe. Compared with lidocaine 1%, the 2% dose provides superior intubating conditions.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".