Literature DB >> 11981145

The influence of cuff volume and anatomic location on pharyngeal, esophageal, and tracheal mucosal pressures with the esophageal tracheal combitube.

Christian Keller1, Joseph Brimacombe, Micheal Boehler, Alexander Loeckinger, Friedrich Puehringer.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The authors determined the influence of cuff volume and anatomic location on pharyngeal, esophageal, and tracheal mucosal pressures for the esophageal tracheal combitube.
METHODS: Twenty fresh cadavers were studied. Microchip sensors were attached to the anterior, lateral, and posterior surfaces of the distal and proximal cuffs of the small adult esophageal tracheal combitube. Mucosal pressure for the proximal cuff in the pharynx was measured at 0- to 100-ml cuff volume in 10-ml increments, and for the distal cuff in the esophagus and trachea were measured at 0- to 20-ml cuff volume in 2-ml increments. The proximal cuff volume to form an oropharyngeal seal of 30 cm H2O was determined. In addition, mucosal pressures for the proximal cuff in the pharynx were measured in four awake volunteers with topical anesthesia.
RESULTS: There was an increase in mucosal pressure in the trachea, esophagus, and pharynx at all cuff locations with increasing volume (all: P < 0.001). Pharyngeal mucosal pressures were highest posteriorly (50-ml cuff volume: 99 +/- 62 cm H2O; 100-ml cuff volume: 255 +/- 161 cm H2O). Esophageal mucosal pressures were highest posteriorly (10-ml cuff volume: 108 +/- 55 cm H2O; 20-ml cuff volume: 269 +/- 133 cm H2O). Tracheal mucosal pressures were highest anteriorly (10-ml cuff volume: 98 +/- 53 cm H2O; 20-ml cuff volume: 236 +/- 139 cm H2O). The proximal cuff volume to obtain an oropharyngeal seal of 30 cm H2O was 47 +/- 12 ml. Pharyngeal mucosal pressures were similar for cadavers and awake volunteers.
CONCLUSION: We conclude that mucosal pressures for the esophageal tracheal combitube increase with cuff volume, are highest where the cuff is adjacent to rigid anatomic structures, and potentially exceed mucosal perfusion pressure even when cuff volumes are limited to achieving an oropharyngeal seal of 30 cm H2O.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11981145     DOI: 10.1097/00000542-200205000-00008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesthesiology        ISSN: 0003-3022            Impact factor:   7.892


  5 in total

1.  Evaluation of the oesophageal-tracheal double-lumen tube (Combitube) during general anaesthesia.

Authors:  Werner Rabitsch; Peter Krafft; Franz X Lackner; Reinhard Frenzer; Roland Hofbauer; Camillo Sherif; Michael Frass
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2004-02-16       Impact factor: 1.704

2.  Randomized comparison of the i-gel™, the LMA Supreme™, and the Laryngeal Tube Suction-D using clinical and fibreoptic assessments in elective patients.

Authors:  Sebastian G Russo; Stephan Cremer; Tamara Galli; Christoph Eich; Anselm Bräuer; Thomas A Crozier; Martin Bauer; Micha Strack
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2012-08-07       Impact factor: 2.217

3.  Effectiveness of the endotracheal tube cuff on the trachea: physical and mechanical aspects.

Authors:  Maira Soliani Del Negro; Gilson Barreto; Raíssa Quaiatti Antonelli; Tiago Antônio Baldasso; Luciana Rodrigues de Meirelles; Marcos Mello Moreira; Alfio José Tincani
Journal:  Rev Bras Cir Cardiovasc       Date:  2014 Oct-Dec

Review 4.  Complications Associated with the Use of Supraglottic Airway Devices in Perioperative Medicine.

Authors:  Pavel Michalek; William Donaldson; Eliska Vobrubova; Marek Hakl
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-12-13       Impact factor: 3.411

5.  Evaluation of the optimal cuff volume and cuff pressure of the revised laryngeal tube "LTS-D" in surgical patients.

Authors:  Marc Kriege; Christian Alflen; Johannes Eisel; Thomas Ott; Tim Piepho; Ruediger R Noppens
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2017-02-02       Impact factor: 2.217

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.