ArticleKorean journal of anesthesiology2013
Leakage of fluid around endotracheal tube cuffs: a cadaver study.
Article in Korean journal of anesthesiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of four inflation techniques on endotracheal tube cuff pressure using a feline airway simulator.Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the study was to evaluate the leakage of liquid past the cuffs of tracheal tubes in fresh frozen human heads.
methodsSix truncated fresh frozen heads were used and intubated with 8.0 mm endotracheal tubes. The intracuff pressures tested were 30 and 100 cmH2O. Subsequently, 20 ml of each of two oral antiseptic rinses (0.2% chlorhexidine and octenidine [octenidol®, Schülke & Mayr GmbH, Norderstedt, Germany]) was applied for thirty seconds in the mouth. During the trial, leakage of the cuffs was examined.
resultsThe sealing between the tracheal cuff and tracheal wall was leakage-proof for all tested intracuff pressures and all tested antiseptic rinses. However, approximately 5.6 ml and 1.8 ml leaked into the esophagus and remained as a cuff-puddle, respectively.
conclusionsThe sealing between an endotracheal tube cuff with an intracuff pressure of 30 cmH2O and the tracheal wall is leakage-proof during oral care with antiseptic rinsing. An increase of intracuff pressure to 100 cmH2O does not appear to be required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.