Left Head Rotation as an Alternative to Difficult Tracheal Intubation: Randomized Open Label Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Tracheal intubation is a life-saving intervention, and optimizing the patient’s head and neck position for the best glottic view is a crucial step that accelerates the procedure. The left head rotation maneuver has been recently described as an innovative alternative to the traditional sniffing position used for tracheal intubation with marked improvement in glottic visualization. Objective This study compared the glottic view and intubating conditions in the sniffing position versus left head rotation during direct laryngoscopy. Methods This randomized, open-label clinical trial enrolled 52 adult patients admitted to Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center from September 2020 to January 2021 for an elective surgical procedure requiring tracheal intubation under general anesthesia. Intubation was done using a 45° left head rotation in the experimental group (n=26), while the control group (n=26) was intubated using the conventional sniffing position. Glottic visualization and intubation difficulty with the two procedures were assessed using the Cormack-Lehane grade and Intubation Difficulty Scale, respectively. Successful intubation is measured by observing a capnographic waveform in the end-tidal CO2 monitor after placement of the endotracheal tube. Results There was no statistically significant difference in the Cormack-Lehane grade, with 85% (n=44) of patients classified under grades 1 (n=11 and n=15) and 2 (n=11 and n=7) in the left head rotation and sniffing position groups, respectively. In addition, there were no statistically significant differences in the Intubation Difficulty Scale scores of patients intubated with left head rotation or sniffing position; 30.7% (n=8) of patients in both groups were easily intubated, while 53.8% (n=14) in left head rotation and 57.6% (n=15) in sniffing position groups were intubated with slight difficulty. Similarly, there were no significant differences between the 2 techniques in any of the 7 parameters of the Intubation Difficulty Scale, although numerically fewer patients required the application of additional lifting force (n=7, 26.9% vs n=11, 42.3%) or laryngeal pressure (n=3, 11.5% vs n=7, 26.9%) when intubated with left head rotation. The intubation success rate with left head rotation was 92.3% versus 100% in the sniffing position, but this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions Left head rotation produces comparable laryngeal exposure and intubation ease to the conventional sniffing position. Therefore, left head rotation may be an alternative for patients who cannot be intubated in the sniffing position, especially in hospitals where advanced techniques such as video laryngoscopes and flexible bronchoscopes are unavailable, as is the case in this study. However, since our sample size was small, studies with a larger study population are warranted to establish the generalizability of our findings. In addition, we observed inadequate familiarity among anesthesiologists with the left head rotation technique, and the intubation success rate may improve as practitioners attain greater technical familiarization. Trial Registration International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN)ISRCTN23442026; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN23442026
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 | 0.031 | 0.064 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".