Comparison of endoscopic endotracheal intubation and the v‐gel supraglottic airway device for spontaneously ventilating New Zealand white rabbits undergoing ovariohysterectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Due to the technical difficulties with endotracheal intubation of rabbits, a prospective, randomised, controlled study was performed to compare a rabbit-specific supraglottic airway device (SGAD), the v-gel, with endoscopic endotracheal intubation (EEI) in spontaneously breathing rabbits undergoing ovariohysterectomy. METHODS: Fourteen adult female New Zealand white rabbits were randomly allocated to one of two groups based on the method of airway establishment: EEI or v-gel SGAD. Anaesthesia was induced with ketamine and xylazine and maintained using isoflurane in 100 per cent oxygen. Comparisons were made between groups based on placement time of endotracheal tube/SGAD, number of attempts and adjustments, the necessity to increase isoflurane concentrations to maintain a surgical plane of anaesthesia, arterial blood gas values, gross laryngeal evaluation, and laryngotracheal histopathology. RESULTS: in comparison with EEI (P=0.045). Airway trauma was histologically present but clinically negligible in both groups, with no statistically significant differences observed between techniques (P>0.05). Placement time of the v-gel was significantly faster (P=0.003) and required less technical skill than EEI, but was more easily displaced when changing the animal's position (P=0.004). CONCLUSION: The v-gel is a practical alternative to EEI for securing the airway of healthy spontaneously ventilating rabbits, provided a capnograph is utilised to ensure continuous placement. Both airway techniques appear safe and effective with few complications, as long as intermittent positive pressure ventilation can be employed to correct hypercapnia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".