Rodrigo Alejandro-Salinas

Background: Orthopedic scientific publications play an important role worldwide. Because of the limited evidence in the Latin American literature, we aimed to evaluate the determinants of scientific publication among Peruvian orthopedics as an approach to the Latin American context. Methods: Analytical cross-sectional study. Orthopedic specialists and residents were enrolled during the 52nd Peruvian National Congress of Orthopedics and Traumatology. A form validated by experts was applied to collect variables. The crude and adjusted coefficients were calculated using bivariate and multivariate regression with 95% confidence intervals. Results: A total of 310 participants were included in our study. The prevalence of the scientific orthopedic publication was 34.84%. Multivariate regression showed that, working in a private hospitals, having an interest in tumors and pediatric orthopedics, being involved in teaching activity, belonging to a scientific society other than the Peruvian Society of Orthopedics and Traumatology, having more than one research project, having an international rotation, and active participation in meetings were factors associated with publishing orthopedic scientific articles, while coming from a university in the highlands as an undergraduate and having more than ten shifts per month was associated with publishing fewer scientific articles. Among residents, having had an international rotation was associated with publishing scientific articles. Conclusions: The determinants of scientific production described will serve to increase scientific production in different contexts considering the orthopedist’s training stage.

Background/Objectives: Endotracheal intubation in critically ill patients presents significant challenges due to anatomical and physiological complexities, making airway management crucial. Video laryngoscopy (VL) has emerged as a promising alternative to direct laryngoscopy (DL), offering improved and higher success rates. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the comparative efficacy and safety of VL versus DL in critically ill adults. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library through August 2024 following PRISMA-2020 guidelines. Randomized controlled trials comparing VL and DL in critically ill adult patients were included. The RoB 2.0 tool assessed bias, and GRADE evaluated the certainty of evidence. The primary outcome was first-attempt success; secondary outcomes included intubation time, glottic visualization, and complications. Random effects models were used for data synthesis. Results: Fifteen studies (4582 intubations) were included. VL improved first-attempt success rates (RR 1.12; 95% CI: 1.04–1.21; I² = 87%). It also reduced esophageal intubation (RR 0.44; 95% CI: 0.26–0.75), dental injuries (RR 0.32; 95% CI: 0.16–0.67), and poor glottic visualization. No significant differences were found in hypoxemia, hypotension, or mortality. Conclusions: VL enhances intubation success and reduces specific complications, particularly in difficult airways. However, high heterogeneity and low certainty of evidence warrant further studies to clarify its impact on critical patient outcomes.