Intubation biomechanics: validation of a finite element model of cervical spine motion during endotracheal intubation in intact and injured conditions.
OBJECTIVE Because of limitations inherent to cadaver models of endotracheal intubation, the authors' group developed a finite element (FE) model of the human cervical spine and spinal cord. Their aims were to 1) compare FE model predictions of intervertebral motion during intubation with intervertebral motion measured in patients with intact cervical spines and in cadavers with spine injuries at C-2 and C3-4 and 2) estimate spinal cord strains during intubation under these conditions. METHODS The FE model was designed to replicate the properties of an intact (stable) spine in patients, C-2 injury (Type II odontoid fracture), and a severe C3-4 distractive-flexion injury from prior cadaver studies. The authors recorded the laryngoscope force values from 2 different laryngoscopes (Macintosh, high intubation force; Airtraq, low intubation force) used during the patient and cadaver intubation studies. FE-modeled motion was compared with experimentally measured motion, and corresponding cord strain values were calculated. RESULTS FE model predictions of intact intervertebral motions were comparable to motions measured in patients and in cadavers at occiput-C2. In intact subaxial segments, the FE model more closely predicted patient intervertebral motions than did cadavers. With C-2 injury, FE-predicted motions did not differ from cadaver measurements. With C3-4 injury, however, the FE model predicted greater motions than were measured in cadavers. FE model cord strains during intubation were greater for the Macintosh laryngoscope than the Airtraq laryngoscope but were comparable among the 3 conditions (intact, C-2 injury, and C3-4 injury). CONCLUSIONS The FE model is comparable to patients and cadaver models in estimating occiput-C2 motion during intubation in both intact and injured conditions. The FE model may be superior to cadavers in predicting motions of subaxial segments in intact and injured conditions.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 30 December 2017.
All research outputs
#4,189,862
of 34,372,222 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine
#285
of 2,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,827
of 371,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine
#8
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,372,222 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,425 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 371,671 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
