Cuff depth and continuous chest auscultation method for determination of tracheal tube insertion depth in nasal intubation: observational study

Kentaro Ouchi, Kazuna Sugiyama

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Incorrect endobronchial placement of the tracheal tube can lead to serious complications. Hence, it is necessary to determine the accuracy of tracheal tube positioning. Markers are included on tracheal tubes, in the process of their manufacture, as indicators of approximate intubation depth. In addition, continuous chest auscultation has been used for determining the proper position of the tube. We examined insertion depth using the cuff depth and continuous chest auscultation method (CC method), compared with insertion depth determined by the marker method, to assess the accuracy of these methods. Methods: After induction of anesthesia, tracheal intubation was performed in each patient. In the CC method, the depth of tube insertion was measured when the cuff had passed through the glottis, and again when breath sounds changed in quality; the depth of tube insertion was determined from these values. In the marker method, the depth of tube insertion was measured and determined when the marker of the tube had reached the glottis, using insertion depth according to the marker as an index. Results: Insertion depth by the marker method was 26.6 ± 1.2 cm and by the CC method was 28.0 ± 1.2 cm (P < 0.0001). The CC method indicated a significantly greater depth than the marker method. Conclusion: This study determined the safe range of tracheal tube placement. Tube positions determined by the CC method were about 1 cm deeper than those determined by the marker. This information is important to prevent accidental one-lung ventilation and accidental extubation. Clinical trial registration: UMIN No. UMIN000011375.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)193-198
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Anesthesia
Volume30
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 1 2016

Fingerprint

Auscultation
Nose
Intubation
Observational Studies
Thorax
Glottis
One-Lung Ventilation
Anesthesia
Clinical Trials

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

Cuff depth and continuous chest auscultation method for determination of tracheal tube insertion depth in nasal intubation : observational study. / Ouchi, Kentaro; Sugiyama, Kazuna.

In: Journal of Anesthesia, Vol. 30, No. 2, 01.04.2016, p. 193-198.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{f53172dd63a44669af27f0237dbb09fa,
title = "Cuff depth and continuous chest auscultation method for determination of tracheal tube insertion depth in nasal intubation: observational study",
abstract = "Background: Incorrect endobronchial placement of the tracheal tube can lead to serious complications. Hence, it is necessary to determine the accuracy of tracheal tube positioning. Markers are included on tracheal tubes, in the process of their manufacture, as indicators of approximate intubation depth. In addition, continuous chest auscultation has been used for determining the proper position of the tube. We examined insertion depth using the cuff depth and continuous chest auscultation method (CC method), compared with insertion depth determined by the marker method, to assess the accuracy of these methods. Methods: After induction of anesthesia, tracheal intubation was performed in each patient. In the CC method, the depth of tube insertion was measured when the cuff had passed through the glottis, and again when breath sounds changed in quality; the depth of tube insertion was determined from these values. In the marker method, the depth of tube insertion was measured and determined when the marker of the tube had reached the glottis, using insertion depth according to the marker as an index. Results: Insertion depth by the marker method was 26.6 ± 1.2 cm and by the CC method was 28.0 ± 1.2 cm (P < 0.0001). The CC method indicated a significantly greater depth than the marker method. Conclusion: This study determined the safe range of tracheal tube placement. Tube positions determined by the CC method were about 1 cm deeper than those determined by the marker. This information is important to prevent accidental one-lung ventilation and accidental extubation. Clinical trial registration: UMIN No. UMIN000011375.",
author = "Kentaro Ouchi and Kazuna Sugiyama",
year = "2016",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00540-015-2110-0",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "193--198",
journal = "Journal of Anesthesia",
issn = "0913-8668",
publisher = "Springer Japan",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cuff depth and continuous chest auscultation method for determination of tracheal tube insertion depth in nasal intubation

T2 - observational study

AU - Ouchi, Kentaro

AU - Sugiyama, Kazuna

PY - 2016/4/1

Y1 - 2016/4/1

N2 - Background: Incorrect endobronchial placement of the tracheal tube can lead to serious complications. Hence, it is necessary to determine the accuracy of tracheal tube positioning. Markers are included on tracheal tubes, in the process of their manufacture, as indicators of approximate intubation depth. In addition, continuous chest auscultation has been used for determining the proper position of the tube. We examined insertion depth using the cuff depth and continuous chest auscultation method (CC method), compared with insertion depth determined by the marker method, to assess the accuracy of these methods. Methods: After induction of anesthesia, tracheal intubation was performed in each patient. In the CC method, the depth of tube insertion was measured when the cuff had passed through the glottis, and again when breath sounds changed in quality; the depth of tube insertion was determined from these values. In the marker method, the depth of tube insertion was measured and determined when the marker of the tube had reached the glottis, using insertion depth according to the marker as an index. Results: Insertion depth by the marker method was 26.6 ± 1.2 cm and by the CC method was 28.0 ± 1.2 cm (P < 0.0001). The CC method indicated a significantly greater depth than the marker method. Conclusion: This study determined the safe range of tracheal tube placement. Tube positions determined by the CC method were about 1 cm deeper than those determined by the marker. This information is important to prevent accidental one-lung ventilation and accidental extubation. Clinical trial registration: UMIN No. UMIN000011375.

AB - Background: Incorrect endobronchial placement of the tracheal tube can lead to serious complications. Hence, it is necessary to determine the accuracy of tracheal tube positioning. Markers are included on tracheal tubes, in the process of their manufacture, as indicators of approximate intubation depth. In addition, continuous chest auscultation has been used for determining the proper position of the tube. We examined insertion depth using the cuff depth and continuous chest auscultation method (CC method), compared with insertion depth determined by the marker method, to assess the accuracy of these methods. Methods: After induction of anesthesia, tracheal intubation was performed in each patient. In the CC method, the depth of tube insertion was measured when the cuff had passed through the glottis, and again when breath sounds changed in quality; the depth of tube insertion was determined from these values. In the marker method, the depth of tube insertion was measured and determined when the marker of the tube had reached the glottis, using insertion depth according to the marker as an index. Results: Insertion depth by the marker method was 26.6 ± 1.2 cm and by the CC method was 28.0 ± 1.2 cm (P < 0.0001). The CC method indicated a significantly greater depth than the marker method. Conclusion: This study determined the safe range of tracheal tube placement. Tube positions determined by the CC method were about 1 cm deeper than those determined by the marker. This information is important to prevent accidental one-lung ventilation and accidental extubation. Clinical trial registration: UMIN No. UMIN000011375.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84948993766&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84948993766&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00540-015-2110-0

DO - 10.1007/s00540-015-2110-0

M3 - Article

C2 - 26620185

AN - SCOPUS:84948993766

VL - 30

SP - 193

EP - 198

JO - Journal of Anesthesia

JF - Journal of Anesthesia

SN - 0913-8668

IS - 2

ER -