| Title |
Airway management in patients undergoing emergency Cesarean section
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Anesthesia, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00540-015-2037-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Takashi Asai |
| Abstract |
Special care is required for airway management of patients undergoing emergency Cesarean section. Although the incidence of difficult intubation and difficult ventilation is similar between pregnant and non-pregnant women, the severity of complications in pregnant patients would be much greater than in non-pregnant patients, if tracheal intubation is found to be difficult: increased risk of pulmonary aspiration, hypoxia, airway obstruction due to laryngeal edema, and a "sleeping baby" being taken out. Rapid-sequence induction of anesthesia is generally indicated to a patient undergoing emergency Cesarean section under general anesthesia. The technique has been evolving, without losing the key premise of minimizing the period of the airway being not protected from pulmonary aspiration, and of permitting rapid wake up if tracheal intubation fails. In this review, I describe the appropriate airway management, based on the current state of knowledge, in a patient undergoing emergency Cesarean section under general anesthesia. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 14% |
| Researcher | 4 | 14% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 11% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 7 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 57% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 32% |
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 07 June 2015.
All research outputs
#15,333,633
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Anesthesia
#417
of 812 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,588
of 266,679 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Anesthesia
#9
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 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 812 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 266,679 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.