Observational studyBMC pediatrics2021
Comparison of nostril sizes of newborn infants with outer diameter of endotracheal tubes.
Observational study in BMC pediatrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03369028 (Fitting of Commonly Available Face Masks for Late Preterm and Term Infants), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Fitting of Commonly Available Face Masks for Late Preterm and Term Infants
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecommendations for endotracheal tube (ETT) size usually refer to the inner diameter (ID). Outer diameters (OD), however, vary greatly between manufacturers, which in some brands might cause difficulties in passing the ETT through the nostrils if choosing the nasal route for intubation. Even though the nostrils are dilatable by an ETT, it might be difficult to pass an ETT through the posterior naris (narrowest point of the nasal passage), if the OD is bigger than the nostrils. Therefore, nostril size may provide some guidance for the appropriate ETT size preventing unsuccessful intubation attempts. This study therefore compares nostril sizes of newborn infants with ODs of ETTs from several manufacturers.
methodsThis is a subgroup analysis of a prospective observational study, performed in a single tertiary perinatal centre in Germany. The diameter of the nostril of infants born between 34 and 41 weeks´ gestation was measured in 3D images using 3dMDvultus software and compared to the OD of ETT from five different manufacturers.
resultsComparisons of nostril sizes with ODs of different ETTs were made for 99 infants with a mean (SD) birthweight of 3058g (559) [range: 1850-4100g]. Mean (SD) nostril size was 5.3mm (0.6). The OD of the 3.5mm ETT of different manufacturers ranged from 4.8-5.3mm and was thus larger than the nostril size of 20-46% of late preterm or term infants. Some OD of a 3.0mm ETT were even bigger than the OD of a 3.5mm ETT (e.g. the 3.0mm ETT from Rüsch® has an OD of 5.0mm while the 3.5mm ETT from Portex® has an OD of 4.8mm).
conclusionsClinicians should be aware of the OD of ETTs to reduce unsuccessful intubation attempts caused by ETT sizes not fitting the nasal cavity. Generated data may help to adapt recommendations in future.
trial registrationSubgroup analysis of the "Fitting of Commonly Available Face Masks for Late Preterm and Term Infants (CAFF)"-study: NCT03369028, www.ClinicalTrials.gov , December 11, 2017.
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.