The novel video‐assisted intubating laryngeal mask Totaltrack compared to the intubating laryngeal mask Fastrach – a controlled randomized manikin study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The novel Totaltrack combines a supraglottic airway device with video laryngoscopic tracheal intubation. The intubation laryngeal mask Fastrach is an established device without visual control of intubation. We hypothesized that supraglottic ventilation success with Totaltrack would be similar to Fastrach, but intubation would be performed faster due to visual control of the procedure. METHODS: Fifty-five anaesthesiologists were randomized into one of two study arms: Fastrach Totaltrack. After a standardized introduction, six consecutive attempts of supraglottic ventilation and intubation attempts with each of one of the devices were performed on an airway manikin. The combined primary outcome was: time to supraglottic ventilation and time to ventilation after intubation. Additionally, success rate and learning curves were evaluated. RESULTS: Supraglottic time to ventilation was shorter when using the Fastrach compared to the Totaltrack (median: 7.8 s [confidence interval [CI]: 7.0-8.6 s] vs. 11 s [CI: 7.8-14.2 s], P < 0.001). Intubation was faster using the Fastrach compared to Totaltrack (median: 12.5 s, [CI: 10.1-14.9 s] vs. 23.3 s [CI: 21.5-25.1 s], P < 0.001). Success rate for supraglottic ventilation was comparable between Fastrach and Totaltrack (86-96%). Successful intubation via the device was 100% in Fastrach and ranged from 61% to 93% in Totaltrack, with a higher probability of successful intubation after four applications. CONCLUSION: In this manikin-based study the novel Totaltrack did not prove superior to Fastrach despite a similar design. Video laryngoscopic control of supraglottic ventilation and endotracheal intubation was prolonged using the Totaltrack. Clinical trials are mandatory to evaluate the role of the Totaltrack in airway management.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".