The use of intubating lightwand in difficult airway patients with limited management options
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The intubating lightwand is a recommended airway management tool in patients with failed direct laryngoscopy or intubation; but the device is under-utilised. This study reports successful lightwand intubation in a cohort of 22 consecutive adult patients with difficult airway; who required endotracheal general anaesthesia, in the presence of limited management options. Patients underwent different procedures: tonsillectomy (2), pharyngeal biopsy (6), abdominal surgery (5), thoracoscopy (3) and maxillofacial surgery (6). All the patients had a difficult airway, reduced mouth opening, neck anomalies and airway scores of Mallampati 3 or 4. They were all intubated easily, promptly and safely with the lightwand. This study shows the utility of lightwand intubation in patients with difficult airway and limited airway management options. The study highlights that the lightwand is durable, portable, cost-effective, easy to use and easy to maintain; compared to other devices for difficult intubation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".