Blind intubation through an i-gel® in the prone position: A prospective cohort study.

Accidental extubation in the prone position is a medical emergency in which quick and low resource demanding airway management is required. Regaining oxygenation is the primary goal, but sometimes intubation may be required to regain oxygenation. Blind intubation through an i-gel® (Intersurgical Ltd, Wokingham, Berkshire, UK) may be a quick and low resource demanding method. However, the success rate of the use of an i-gel as an intubation conduit in the prone position is unknown. This was a prospective study in patients scheduled for lumbar surgery. General anaesthesia was induced in the prone position and an i-gel was inserted. After successful ventilation, up to three attempts at intubation using a VivaSight-SL single-lumen tube (Ambu A/S, Ballerup, Denmark) were performed. The first attempt was blinded for the operator and the patient's head was in a neutral position. The second attempt was blinded for the operator with the patient's head rotated laterally. The third attempt was on-screen and allowed various manoeuvres to facilitate intubation. A success rate of 70% was deemed clinically acceptable. The study was terminated early after 14 subjects because the success rate of 70% was not achievable. However, ventilation using the i-gel in the prone position was successful in 13 patients (93%). Intubation was successful in only one patient at the first attempt, one patient at the second attempt and three patients at the third attempt. Overall, the success rate was 36%. Blind intubation using an i-gel as an intubation conduit in the prone position is not recommended.Netherlands Trial Register number NL6387 (NTR7659).

From science to popularization, and back--the science and journalism of the Belgian economist Gustave de Molinari.

Sociologists and historians of science, such as Richard Whitley and Stephen Hilgartner, identified a culturally dominant discourse of science popularization in the broader society. In this dominant view, a clear distinction is maintained between scientific knowledge and popularized knowledge. Popularization of science is seen as the process of transmitting real science to a lay public. This discourse on science popularization was criticized by Whitley and Hilgartner as an inadequate simplification. Yet, the battered traditional model of popularization remains remarkably resistant to these theoretical attacks. In this paper I will argue, based on research of the output of the Belgian economist Gustave de Molinari (1819-1912), and more specifically, his opinion on the role of government in economic life, that the boundary between science and popularization in political economy is not clear and that the status of scientists fluctuates over time and in different contexts. It is therefore impossible for historians or economists to distinguish science from popularization based on the essential characteristics or intrinsic quality of the work. De Molinari's ideas are followed through the different media of science and journalism. Although de Molinari himself differentiated between his scientific and "popular" work, the boundary between science and popularization proves to be highly permeable, in both directions.