PP341 Topic: AS09–Global Health/Resource Limited Setting/Health Inequalities/Impact of Global Warming/Other: OROTRACHEAL INTUBATION WITH 3D-PRINTED VIDEOLARYNGOSCOPE, TRADITIONAL VIDEOLARYNGOSCOPE, AND DIRECT LARYNGOSCOPY: COMPARATIVE STUDY IN A PEDIATRIC MANIKIN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims & Objectives: Videolaryngoscopes (VL) are crucial for pediatric orotracheal intubation (OTI), especially in challenging situations like difficult airways (DA), limited cervical mobility, or intubating patients with suspected or confirmed coronavirus infection. However, their high costs and limited availability pose significant barriers. This study investigates the feasibility of assembling an affordable videolaryngoscope using 3D-printed blades and a borescope, aiming to improve accessibility and overcome these obstacles. The objective is to compare the first attempt OTI success rates among three different techniques: 3D-printed videolaryngoscope (3DVL), traditional videolaryngoscope (TVL), and direct laryngoscopy (DL) in a pediatric manikin model, simulating normal airway (NA) and difficult airway (DA). Methods: Sixty medical professionals with varying levels of expertise in pediatric intubation were recruited. After explanation and training, participants performed OTI in a pediatric manikin with and without a cervical collar using 3DVL, TVL, and DL, totaling six intubations per participant. Variables recorded included first attempt intubation success rates, time to glottic visualization, time to successful intubation, need for external manipulation, Cormack-Lehane grade, and preferred device. Results: There was no difference in success rate between 3DVL, TVL and DL for NA and DA. Time to intubation was significantly shorter with DL than 3DVL and TVL in NA and DA (p=0.0002 and p=0.0104, respectively). Conclusions: In a simulated pediatric setting, 3DVL demonstrated comparable success rates and time to OTI as TVL. This suggests 3DVL’s potential inclusion in resource-limited airway management. Further research is needed to assess its safety and efficacy in clinical settings and diverse age groups. Keywords: videolaryngoscope, 3D printing, difficult airway, low resource settings, orotracheal 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.002 |
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".