Comparing videolaryngoscopy and flexible bronchoscopy to rescue failed direct laryngoscopy in children: a propensity score matched analysis of the Pediatric Difficult Intubation Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Flexible bronchoscopy is the gold standard for difficult airway management. Clinicians are using videolaryngoscopy increasingly because it is perceived to be easier to use with high success rates. We conducted this study to compare the success rates of the two techniques when used after failed direct laryngoscopy in children with difficult tracheal intubations. METHODS: We identified cases where initial attempts at direct laryngoscopy failed in the multicentre Pediatric Difficult Intubation Registry from August 2012-September 2023. After propensity score matching, we compared success rates and complications when videolaryngoscopy and flexible bronchoscopy were used as rescue techniques in the matched cohort and in matched patients weighing < 5 kg. RESULTS: Clinicians chose videolaryngoscopy more frequently than flexible bronchoscopy when direct laryngoscopy failed (64.7%, 1426/2281 vs. 7.3%, 156/2281, p < 0.001). Propensity score matched cohorts did not differ with respect to first-attempt success, eventual success and complications. For the subgroup of infants < 5 kg, clinicians chose videolaryngoscopy more frequently than flexible bronchoscopy to rescue failed direct laryngoscopy (54.3%, 295/543 vs. 8.9%, 44/543, p < 0.001). First-attempt success was 43% (62/145) with videolaryngoscopy and 62% (18/29) with flexible bronchoscopy (odds ratio 2.19, 95%CI 0.96-4.98, p = 0.061). Eventual success was 71% (103/145) with videolaryngoscopy and 90% (26/29) with flexible bronchoscopy (odds ratio 3.53, 95%CI 1.03-12.2, p = 0.046). Complications did not differ between the techniques. DISCUSSION: Videolaryngoscopy was chosen more frequently than flexible bronchoscopy as a rescue technique in a cohort of children with difficult direct laryngoscopy, with similar success and complication rates. For small infants, flexible bronchoscopy had a higher eventual success rate, underscoring the importance of maintaining proficiency with flexible bronchoscopy.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".