Total intravenous anesthesia and spontaneous respiration for airway endoscopy in children – a prospective evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Inhalational anesthesia with spontaneous respiration is traditionally used to facilitate airway endoscopy in children. The potential difficulties in maintaining adequate depth of anesthesia using inhalational anesthesia and the anesthetic pollution of the surgical environment are significant disadvantages of this technique. We report our institutional experience using total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and spontaneous respiration. METHODS: We prospectively studied 41 pediatric patients undergoing 52 airway endoscopies and airway surgeries. Following induction of anesthesia, a propofol infusion was titrated to a clinically adequate level of anesthesia, guided by the Bispectral Index (BIS), and a remifentanil infusion was titrated to respiratory rate. ECG, BP, pulse oximetry, BIS level, transcutaneous CO(2) (TcCO(2)), respiratory rate, and drug infusion rates were recorded. Adverse events and the response to these events were also recorded. RESULTS: Forty-one children underwent 52 airway procedures; 17 rigid bronchoscopies and 35 micro-laryngobronchoscopies, including 18 LASER treatments, were performed. The mean (sd) age was 6.9 (5.8) years and weight 26.9 (21.2) kg. The mean induction time was 13 (6) min, and anesthesia duration was 49 (30) min. The mean highest TcCO(2) recorded during the procedures was 62.8 +/- 15.3 mmHg. Coughing occurred in 14 (27%) patients, requiring additional topical anesthesia (3), a bolus of propofol (4) or remifentanil (1), or removal of the bronchoscope (1). Desaturation below 90% occurred in 10 (19%) cases; only three required intervention in the form of temporary assisted ventilation (2) or inhaled bronchodilators (1). No laryngospasm, stridor, or arrhythmias were observed. CONCLUSION: TIVA and spontaneous respiration is an effective technique to manage anesthesia for airway endoscopy and surgery in children.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".