Adding Flexible Instrumentation to a Curved Videolaryngoscope: A Novel Tool for Laryngeal Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Transoral surgery of the larynx with rigid instruments is not always possible. This may result in insufficient therapy or in an increased need for open surgery. For these patients, alternative surgical systems are needed. Here, we demonstrate a curved prototype for laryngeal surgery equipped with flexible instruments. STUDY DESIGN: Pre-clinical user study in an ex vivo porcine laryngeal model. METHODS: The prototype was built from established medical devices, namely a hyperangulated videolaryngoscope and modified flexible instruments as well as three-dimensional printed parts. Feasibility of laryngeal manipulation was evaluated in a user study (n = 19) with a porcine ex vivo laryngeal model. Using three different visualization technologies, the participants performed various fine motor skills tasks and rated the usability of the system on a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Exposure, accessibility, and manipulation of important laryngeal structures were always possible using the new prototype. The participants needed considerably less time (mean, 96.4 seconds ± 6.4 seconds vs. 111.5 seconds ± 4.5 seconds, P = .18), reported significantly better general impression (mean score 3.0 vs. 3.8, P = .041) and significantly lower user head and neck strain (2.6 vs. 1.7, P = .022) using a 40-inch television screen as compared to a standard videolaryngoscope monitor. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that our curved prototype and large monitor visualization may provide a cost-effective minimally invasive alternative for difficult laryngeal exposure. Its special advantages include avoiding the need for a straight line of sight and a simple and cost-effective construction. The system could be further improved through advances in camera chip technology and smaller instruments. Laryngoscope, 131:E561-E568, 2021.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".