↓ Skip to main content

Efficacious and safe orotracheal intubation for laboratory mice using slim torqueable guidewire-based technique: comparisons between a modified and a conventional method

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Efficacious and safe orotracheal intubation for laboratory mice using slim torqueable guidewire-based technique: comparisons between a modified and a conventional method
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12871-016-0173-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chieh-Shou Su, Hui-Chin Lai, Chih-Yen Wang, Wen-Lieng Lee, Kuo-Yang Wang, Ya-Ling Yang, Li-Chun Wang, Chia-Ning Liu, Tsun-Jui Liu

Abstract

Tracheal intubation of laboratory mice remains essential yet challenging for most researchers. The aim of this study was to investigate whether this procedure can be more efficiently and safely accomplished by a novel method using slim and torqueable guidewires to guide access to the trachea. This study was carried out in an animal laboratory affiliated to a tertiary medical center. Mice weighing 22 to 28 g were subjected to various open-chest experiments after being anesthetized with intraperitoneal ketamine (100 mg/kg) and lidocaine hydrochloride (10 mg/kg). The oropharyngeal cavity was opened with angled tissue forceps, and the trachea was transilluminated using an external light. The vocal cords were then crossed using either the Conventional method with a 38-mm-long, end-blunted stiff needle as a guide for insertion of a 22-gauge, 25-mm-long intravenous catheter into the trachea, or the Modified method utilizing using a 0.014-inch-thin torqueable wire as the guide to introduce an identical tube over it into the trachea. The epithelial integrity of the trachea was later examined histologically when the animals were sacrificed either immediately after the surgery or at 28 days post-surgery, depending on the corresponding research protocols. Orotracheal intubation was successfully completed in all mice using either the Conventional (N = 42) or the Modified method (N = 50). With the Modified method, intubation took less time (1.73 vs. 2.17 min, Modified vs. Conventional, p < 0.001) and fewer attempts (1.0 vs. 1.33, p < 0.001), and there were fewer procedural difficulties (0 % vs. 16.7 %, p = 0.009) and complications (0 % vs. 11.9 %, p = 0.041) compared with the Conventional method. Histological analysis revealed a significantly lower incidence of immediate (0 % vs. 39 %, p < 0.001) and late (0 % vs. 58 %, p < 0.001) injuries to the tracheal epithelial lining with the Modified method compared to the Conventional method. Tracheal intubation for laboratory mice can be completed efficiently, safely and atraumatically using the proposed Modified method employing readily available inexpensive instruments.

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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 17%
Professor 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 7 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 33%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 7 29%
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 19 January 2016.
All research outputs
#18,436,183
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#990
of 1,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#284,721
of 393,708 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#13
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,496 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 393,708 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.