Snorkel breathing technique in anesthesia: A narrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this narrative review is to investigate the existing evidence supporting the use of the snorkel breathing technique in anesthesia practice. In addition, this review aims to identify certain patient scenarios where the snorkel breathing approach can be appropriate. A total of nine articles relevant to anesthesia and airway management were retrieved using the search strategy. A review of the final papers found that the snorkel breathing technique offers a few advantages over using a regular face mask in the operating room. The snorkel or mouthpiece breathing approach can be as effective as the traditional face mask for successful preoxygenation, as defined by an end-tidal oxygen concentration greater than 0.9. The snorkel breathing approach can be a viable option in patient populations where face mask application is challenging. It also has greater acceptance than the face mask among patients and healthy volunteers. Another advantage of the snorkel breathing technique is that it can be utilized to provide apneic oxygenation during rapid sequence induction using short-acting neuromuscular blocking drugs, reducing the use of plastic (face mask). For older children and claustrophobic adults who are apprehensive about masks, snorkel gas induction can make anesthesia induction smoother and more pleasant. The snorkel breathing technique has potential application in certain anesthetic scenarios, and this narrative review also incorporates the author's clinical experience with it. To validate the effect of this novel technique (snorkel preoxygenation and snorkel gas induction) on patient-centered outcomes, more randomized controlled trials are required.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".