I-gel™ Versus LMA-Fastrach™ Supraglottic Airway for Flexible Bronchoscope-Guided Tracheal Intubation Using a Parker (GlideRite™) Endotracheal Tube
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The I-gel (IG) supraglottic airway device is a reliable way to establish an airway. Its large ventilation lumen allows for easy passage of an endotracheal tube. With the use of a flexible bronchoscope, the IG offers a good visualization of the laryngeal inlet. This prospective randomized study aims to compare the success rate of flexible bronchoscope-guided tracheal intubation using either the IG or the LMA-Fastrach (FT) laryngeal masks. METHODS: One hundred twenty patients requiring general anesthesia were randomized to 1 of the 2 study groups: IG or FT. After anesthesia induction, the assigned laryngeal mask was inserted to obtain adequate ventilation. We then proceeded to a flexible bronchoscope-guided intubation through the supraglottic device. Tracheal intubation and laryngeal mask insertion success rates were noted, as well as the time required for these manipulations. The view of the laryngeal inlet was graded for each intubation attempt. RESULTS: Sixty patients were assigned to each study group. The intubation success rates were similar between the IG and the FT groups (100 % vs 95.0 % at first attempt; P = 0.12). The times required for tracheal intubation were significantly lower in the IG group (30 ± 11 seconds vs 50 ± 21 seconds; P < 0.0001). Glottic visualization was better in the IG group, with a significantly higher percentage of grade 1 visualization (63.3% vs 3.3%; P < 0.0001) and a lower percentage of grade 3 visualization (1.7% vs 60.0%; P < 0.0001), than that in the FT group. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the IG supraglottic airway device as a conduit for flexible bronchoscope-guided tracheal intubation results in a success rate equivalent to the use of the LMA-FT. However, the IG allows for shorter intubation times and a better visualization of the glottic opening compared with the LMA-FT.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".