↓ Skip to main content

Laryngeal injuries following endotracheal intubation in ENT surgery: predictive value of anatomical scores

Overview of attention for article published in European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Laryngeal injuries following endotracheal intubation in ENT surgery: predictive value of anatomical scores
Published in
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, August 2013
DOI 10.1007/s00405-013-2659-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arne Böttcher, Thomas Mencke, Amelie Zitzmann, Rainald Knecht, Nathan Jowett, Gabriele Nöldge-Schomburg, Hans Wilhelm Pau, Steffen Dommerich

Abstract

Endotracheal intubation has been associated with a threefold higher incidence of laryngopharyngeal complaints following anesthesia in comparison to laryngeal mask airway. Such complaints, including hoarseness and sore throat, have been reported in up to 90% of patients within 24 h of extubation. The purpose of this study was to determine which preoperatively documented clinical and anatomic parameters are predictive of laryngo-pharyngeal trauma resulting from elective endotracheal intubation. Fifty-three patients undergoing ENT procedures requiring general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation were recruited. Pre and postoperative laryngostroboscopic examination was performed and findings correlated to preoperative clinical and anatomic parameters. Readily assessed anatomic parameters including height (>180 cm) and weight (>80 kg) correlated significantly to the Eckerbom grade of intubation-associated acute laryngeal injury (rs = 0.374; p = 0.006 and rs = 0.278; p = 0.044, respectively). The mandibular protrusion test also correlated significantly to the Eckerbom grade (rs = 0.462, p = 0.001) while the upper-lip-bite test showed significant correlation to impaired vocal fold oscillation (rs = 0.288, p = 0.036), with injury prediction sensitivities of 37.5 and 39.4%, respectively. No parameters correlated to subjective complaints (n = 5, 9.2%). This study provides suggestions on how to improve the classification of intubation-associated laryngeal injuries as well as providing the basis for larger clinical trials in other surgical subspecialties.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 3%
Unknown 31 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Student > Postgraduate 4 13%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Computer Science 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 8 25%
Attention Score in Context

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 04 March 2014.
All research outputs
#15,293,290
of 22,743,667 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#1,174
of 3,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,543
of 199,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#21
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,743,667 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,049 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
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 199,861 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.