Question 12 Answer following 2 questions based on a research abstract below. Abstract BACKGROUND: Tracheal intubation in

[answerhappygod]

Question 12 Answer following 2 questions based on a research
abstract below. Abstract BACKGROUND: Tracheal intubation in
patients with an immobilized cervical spine can be difficult
because of a restricted mouth opening and limited neck movements.
Use of the Bonfils intubation fibrescope (BIF) or left molar (LM)
laryngoscopy may be suitable options for tracheal intubation in
such patients. Intubation adjuncts, such as an endotracheal tube
introducer, may improve the overall intubation success rate with
the LM approach. Formal studies are currently lacking on the use of
LM laryngoscopy with a tube introducer. METHODS: After
Institutional Review Board approval, a cervical collar (to simulate
a difficult airway scenario) was placed on 120 prospective elective
surgical patients who were randomly assigned to tracheal intubation
with a BIF (Group BIF, n = 60) or with tube introducer-assisted LM
laryngoscopy with routine optimal external laryngeal manipulation
(Group LM, n = 60). The groups were compared for the primary
endpoint, total intubation time, as well as for time to glottic
view, tube introducer insertion time, intubation success rate,
number of intubation attempts, and airway complications. RESULTS:
The mean (SD) total time for intubation was longer in Group LM than
in Group BIF [40.4 (14.2) sec vs 33.1 (15.4) sec, respectively;
mean difference 7.3 sec; 99% confidence interval (CI) 3.2 to 14.4;
P < 0.001] despite less mean (SD) total time required for
glottic view [15.4 (10.3) sec vs 23.8 (15.7) sec, respectively;
mean difference 8.3 sec; 99% CI 2.3 to 14.7; P < 0.001]. The
overall success rate was comparable between groups (95.0% in Group
BIF vs 96.6% in Group LM; P = 0.64). Tracheal intubations could not
be performed as per protocol in three patients in Group BIF and in
two patients in Group LM and were considered as failures. No
differences between the groups were found in the incidence of side
effects. CONCLUSION: The tube introducer-assisted LM approach to
intubation may be a good alternative to the BIF approach in
patients with anticipated and unanticipated difficult airway
scenarios. Based on the above abstract, what level of research for
this study? Group of answer choices
Exploratory research
Explanatory research
Descriptive research
Basis research
Flag question: Question 13 Question 133.33 pts Answer following
2 questions based on a research abstract below. Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tracheal intubation in patients with an immobilized
cervical spine can be difficult because of a restricted mouth
opening and limited neck movements. Use of the Bonfils intubation
fibrescope (BIF) or left molar (LM) laryngoscopy may be suitable
options for tracheal intubation in such patients. Intubation
adjuncts, such as an endotracheal tube introducer, may improve the
overall intubation success rate with the LM approach. Formal
studies are currently lacking on the use of LM laryngoscopy with a
tube introducer. METHODS: After Institutional Review Board
approval, a cervical collar (to simulate a difficult airway
scenario) was placed on 120 prospective elective surgical patients
who were randomly assigned to tracheal intubation with a BIF (Group
BIF, n = 60) or with tube introducer-assisted LM laryngoscopy with
routine optimal external laryngeal manipulation (Group LM, n = 60).
The groups were compared for the primary endpoint, total intubation
time, as well as for time to glottic view, tube introducer
insertion time, intubation success rate, number of intubation
attempts, and airway complications. RESULTS: The mean (SD) total
time for intubation was longer in Group LM than in Group BIF [40.4
(14.2) sec vs 33.1 (15.4) sec, respectively; mean difference 7.3
sec; 99% confidence interval (CI) 3.2 to 14.4; P < 0.001]
despite less mean (SD) total time required for glottic view [15.4
(10.3) sec vs 23.8 (15.7) sec, respectively; mean difference 8.3
sec; 99% CI 2.3 to 14.7; P < 0.001]. The overall success rate
was comparable between groups (95.0% in Group BIF vs 96.6% in Group
LM; P = 0.64). Tracheal intubations could not be performed as per
protocol in three patients in Group BIF and in two patients in
Group LM and were considered as failures. No differences between
the groups were found in the incidence of side effects. CONCLUSION:
The tube introducer-assisted LM approach to intubation may be a
good alternative to the BIF approach in patients with anticipated
and unanticipated difficult airway scenarios. Based on the above
abstract, what is the research design for this study? Group of
answer choices
Case-control study
Cohort study
Randomized Clinical Trial
Crossover design