Talk:Tracheal intubation

message: I'm working through this article and will post review comments here. I'm also making changes that I hope make it more readable for the general reader. Please examine these changes carefully to ensure I haven't altered the meaning (in a bad way), introduced some grammatical error, added unsourced material, or otherwise worsened things. Please feel free to undo anything you're not happy with. Colin°Talk 19:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have included the statement "Perhaps the most common indication for tracheal intubation is for the placement of a conduit through which nitrous oxide or volatile anesthetics may be administered." in the ==Indications== section. The new ==Alternatives== section addresses the circumstances under which a general anesthetic might be administered without tracheal intubation (inline citations are forthcoming...). I have not gone into too much detail here, as I am trying to avoid getting off-topic (turning this into an article about general anesthesia). DiverDave (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

text: The Airway obstruction subsection now has an inline citation, from a respectable textbook. DiverDave (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Thank you; your help is greatly appreciated. DiverDave (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review 

message: I believe intubation is also used to deliver anaesthetic gases. Could you mention this as an indication? Under what circumstances would a general anaesthetic be given without intubation? Would it be for short-duration procedures, does it depend on the agents used, etc? Colin°Talk 19:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have included the statement "Perhaps the most common indication for tracheal intubation is for the placement of a conduit through which nitrous oxide or volatile anesthetics may be administered." in the ==Indications== section. The new ==Alternatives== section addresses the circumstances under which a general anesthetic might be administered without tracheal intubation (inline citations are forthcoming...). I have not gone into too much detail here, as I am trying to avoid getting off-topic (turning this into an article about general anesthesia). DiverDave (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

text: The Airway obstruction subsection now has an inline citation, from a respectable textbook. DiverDave (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Thank you; your help is greatly appreciated. DiverDave (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Indications

message: * The article needs a section near/at the top that explains the procedure. It is done briefly in the lead but the body should also cover this in detail. Without this, the many of the issues noted in the following sections are hard to appreciate. Colin°Talk 20:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: General

message: * I want to know why folk use straight or curved blades. What are the advantages?
* Can you expand on the advantages of the fiberoptic and video scopes. I think the Laryngoscopy article can be used to list brand names and details of such so I've removed them from here. If any of these models offer particular advantages, then describe what is different about them and why this helps. Just naming a brand isn't particularly enlightening. Colin°Talk 20:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Scopes

message: "Various types of endotracheal tubes are available that have endobronchial as well as endotracheal lumens." We need to explain "endobronchial". I'm guessing the end(s?) of this tube goes into the bronchi (i.e. into one or other lungs). How far? Also, I'm getting a bit confused as to what "lumens" are. I thought the lumen was just a word for the hollow bit of a tube. So how can the hollow bit reach the bronchi if the tube doesn't also? Is this a tube that splits in two? Why does it say "as well as"? Does it have several openings along its length (one in the trachea and one in the bronchi)? Colin°Talk 21:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tracheal tubes

message: The list of minor and serious complications had some repetition, which I've removed, but perhaps it still needs a little rework to better group/rank into common/rare minor/serious or some other useful arrangement. Colin°Talk 18:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Complications

message: Colin asked me to have a peek at this article. On a first skim reading I find it very informative and reasonably comprehensible for a doctor from an unrelated field of medicine. But the point is whether we can make it good enough to be featured quality for the general public.
Some general comments currently, before I do a closer read:
* I would recommend moving the "predicting difficulty" section down, as it relies heavily on what follows. (I know that in daily practice the assessment would precede intubation, but that is not the point)
* Some sources are probably not WP:MEDRS compatible, particularly the 2 patents and a self-published book by Stephen Hawking.
* Given that a hybrid sourcing system is used, it would be nice to have clickable hyperlinks between the reference and source (as we have done on dengue fever)
* The concept of pulmonary aspiration should be clarified on first use, not halfway through the article
I will happily provide ongoing input if this is deemed helpful. JFW | T@lk 23:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impressions 

message: I started an article on Andranik Ovassapian. He is cited in this article and could be linked to it. I am not sure how to add an author link with the referencing format used in the article.TJMSmith (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Author link