Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34731240›Full record

ArticleAnesthesiology2021

Intubation Biomechanics: Clinical Implications of Computational Modeling of Intervertebral Motion and Spinal Cord Strain during Tracheal Intubation in an Intact Cervical Spine.

Benjamin C Gadomski, Bradley J Hindman, Mitchell I Page, Franklin Dexter, Christian M Puttlitz

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Anesthesiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Benjamin C GadomskiDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, School of Biomedical Engineering, Orthopaedic Bioengineering Research Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Bradley J Hindmanthe Department of Anesthesia, University of Iowa Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa.
Mitchell I PageDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, School of Biomedical Engineering, Orthopaedic Bioengineering Research Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Franklin Dexterthe Department of Anesthesia, University of Iowa Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa.
Christian M PuttlitzDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, School of Biomedical Engineering, Orthopaedic Bioengineering Research Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Colorado State University · USUniversity of Iowa · US

Funding

Intubation Mechanics of the Stable and Unstable Cervical SpineR01EB012048 · NIBIB · COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI HINDMAN, BRADLEY JAY, PUTTLITZ, CHRISTIAN · 2011 to 2014
$1.3M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB012048
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn a closed claims study, most patients experiencing cervical spinal cord injury had stable cervical spines. This raises two questions. First, in the presence of an intact (stable) cervical spine, are there tracheal intubation conditions in which cervical intervertebral motions exceed physiologically normal maximum values? Second, with an intact spine, are there tracheal intubation conditions in which potentially injurious cervical cord strains can occur?

methodsThis study utilized a computational model of the cervical spine and cord to predict intervertebral motions (rotation, translation) and cord strains (stretch, compression). Routine (Macintosh) intubation force conditions were defined by a specific application location (mid-C3 vertebral body), magnitude (48.8 N), and direction (70 degrees). A total of 48 intubation conditions were modeled: all combinations of 4 force locations (cephalad and caudad of routine), 4 magnitudes (50 to 200% of routine), and 3 directions (50, 70, and 90 degrees). Modeled maximum intervertebral motions were compared to motions reported in previous clinical studies of the range of voluntary cervical motion. Modeled peak cord strains were compared to potential strain injury thresholds.

resultsModeled maximum intervertebral motions occurred with maximum force magnitude (97.6 N) and did not differ from physiologically normal maximum motion values. Peak tensile cord strains (stretch) did not exceed the potential injury threshold (0.14) in any of the 48 force conditions. Peak compressive strains exceeded the potential injury threshold (-0.20) in 3 of 48 conditions, all with maximum force magnitude applied in a nonroutine location.

conclusionsWith an intact cervical spine, even with application of twice the routine value of force magnitude, intervertebral motions during intubation did not exceed physiologically normal maximum values. However, under nonroutine high-force conditions, compressive strains exceeded potentially injurious values. In patients whose cords have less than normal tolerance to acute strain, compressive strains occurring with routine intubation forces may reach potentially injurious values. EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE:

Indexed as

Computer SimulationBiomechanical PhenomenaCervical VertebraeHumansIntubation, IntratrachealLaryngoscopyRange of Motion, ArticularSpinal CordSpinal Cord InjuriesSprains and Strains

Identifiers

PMID34731240
PMCPMC8578403
OpenAlexW3209146215

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.