Airway management in the adult patient with an unstable cervical spine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The ideal airway management of patients with unstable spinal injury presents a perennial challenge for anaesthesiologists. With competing interests, potentially catastrophic complications, and a scarcity of evidence to support common practices, it is an area rich with dogma and devoid of data. This review seeks to highlight recent evidence that improves our assurance that what we do to manage the airway in the unstable cervical spine is supported by data. RECENT FINDINGS: The increasing range of available technology for intubation provides important opportunities to investigate the superiority (or otherwise) of various techniques - and a chance to challenge accepted practice. Long-held assumptions regarding spinal immobilisation in the context of airway management may require refinement as a true base of evidence develops. SUMMARY: Video laryngoscopy may replace direct laryngoscopy as the default technique for endotracheal intubation in patients with suspected or confirmed spinal instability. Immobilisation of the unstable cervical spine, manually or with rigid cervical collars, is increasingly controversial. It may be that hard collars are used in specific circumstances, rather than as universal precaution in the future.There are no recent data of significantly high quality to warrant wholesale changes to recommended airway management practice and in the absence of new information, limiting movement (in the suspected or confirmed unstable cervical spine) remains the mainstay of clinical practice advice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".