MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2342352320 · doi:10.1007/s12630-016-0654-6

A deliberately restricted laryngeal view with the GlideScope® video laryngoscope is associated with faster and easier tracheal intubation when compared with a full glottic view: a randomized clinical trial

2016· article· en· W2342352320 on OpenAlexaff
Yuqi Gu, Joshua Robert, George Kovács, Andrew D. Milne, Ian R. Morris, Orlando Hung, Kirk MacQuarrie, Sean P. Mackinnon, J. Adam Law

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d anesthésie · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntubationMedicineLaryngoscopyLarynxInterquartile rangeAnesthesiaTracheal intubationConfidence intervalGlottisSurgeryVideo laryngoscopeInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: During video laryngoscopy (VL) with angulated or hyper-curved blades, it is sometimes difficult to complete tracheal intubation despite a full view of the larynx. When using indirect VL, it has been suggested that it may be preferable to obtain a deliberately restricted view of the larynx to facilitate passage of the endotracheal tube. We used the GlideScope® GVL video laryngoscope (GVL) to test whether deliberately obtaining a restricted view would result in faster and easier tracheal intubation than with a full view of the larynx. METHODS: We recruited 163 elective surgical patients and randomly allocated the participants to one of two groups: Group F, where a full view of the larynx was obtained and held during GVL-facilitated tracheal intubation, and Group R, with a restricted view of the larynx (< 50% of glottic opening visible). Study investigators experienced in indirect VL performed the intubations. The intubations were recorded and the video recordings were subsequently assessed for total time to intubation, ease of intubation using a visual analogue scale (VAS; where 0 = easy and 100 = difficult), first-attempt success rate, and oxygen saturation after intubation. Complications were also assessed. RESULTS: The median [interquartile range (IQR)] time to intubation was faster in Group R than in Group F (27 [22-36] sec vs 36 [27-48] sec, respectively; median difference, 9 sec; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5 to 13; P < 0.001). The median [IQR] VAS rating for ease of intubation was also better in Group R than in Group F (14 [6-42) mm vs 50 mm [17-65], respectively; median difference, 20 mm; 95% CI, 10 to 31; P < 0.001). There was no difference between groups regarding the first-attempt success rate, oxygen saturation immediately after intubation, or complications. CONCLUSIONS: Using the GVL with a deliberately restricted view of the larynx resulted in faster and easier tracheal intubation than with a full view and with no additional complications. Our study suggests that obtaining a full or Cormack-Lehane grade 1 view may not be desirable when using the GVL. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02144207.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.286
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations52
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d anesthésieSame topicAirway Management and Intubation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207