| Title |
TotalTrack video intubating laryngeal mask in super-obese patients – series of cases
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s95695 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tomasz Gaszynski |
| Abstract |
Super-obese patients are at increased risk of difficult mask ventilation and difficult intubation. Therefore, devices that allow for simultaneous ventilation/oxygenation during attempts to visualize the entrance to the larynx, increase patient safety. TotalTrack video intubating laryngeal mask is a new device that allows for ventilation during intubation efforts. Twenty-four super-obese patients (body mass index >50 kg/m(2)) were divided into two subgroups: intubation efforts using 1) TotalTrack and 2) Macintosh blade standard laryngoscope in induction of general anesthesia. Visualization and successful intubation was evaluated for both groups with ventilation and post-mask complications additionally evaluated for TotalTrack. In all cases in the TotalTrack group, the Cormack-Lehane score was 1, ventilation and intubation was successful in 11/12 patients. No hypoxia during intubation efforts was recorded. No serious complications of use of TotalTrack were observed. In the Macintosh blade laryngoscope group, all patients were intubated, but the Cormack-Lehane score was 2 in four cases, and 3 in three cases. TotalTrack video intubating laryngeal mask is a device that allows for better visualization of the larynx compared to the standard Macintosh blade laryngoscope, it provides effective ventilation/oxygenation and intubation in super-obese patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 13 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 31% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 15% |
| Librarian | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 8% |
| Professor | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 15% |
| Unknown | 2 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 69% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 3 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 April 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#1,070
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#231,192
of 312,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#56
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,604 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.