Christian R Francom1, Cameron A Best2, Ryan G Eaton3, Victoria Pepper4, Amanda J Onwuka5, Christopher K Breuer6, Meredith N Merz Lind1, Jonathan M Grischkan1, Tendy Chiang7. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA; Department of Pediatric Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA. 2. Center for Regenerative Medicine, The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA. 3. The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA. 4. Department of Pediatric Surgery, Loma Linda University School of Medicine, Loma Linda, CA, USA. 5. Center for Surgical Outcomes Research, The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA. 6. Center for Regenerative Medicine, The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA; Department of Pediatric Surgery, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA. 7. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA; Department of Pediatric Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA; Center for Regenerative Medicine, The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA. Electronic address: tendy.chiang@nationwidechildrens.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic airway measurement (EAM) combines optical endoscopic instruments with open source image processing to accurately obtain airway dimensions. Preclinical models have demonstrated EAM as an accurate technique of airway measurement with the added advantage of characterizing multilevel stenosis, non-circular lesions, and distal obstruction. The aim of this prospective clinical study was to compare EAM to airway measurements obtained from endotracheal tube approximation (ETTA) during pediatric aerodigestive evaluation and to evaluate reproducibility of EAM across practitioners. METHODS: Thirty-seven pediatric patients undergoing routine microlaryngoscopy and bronchoscopy at a single tertiary care children's hospital were prospectively recruited. Patients undergoing emergent procedures were excluded. Two blinded reviewers performed airway measurements using ImageJ (NIH) as previously described and average values were compared to ETTA measurements. Additional EAMs were obtained from an ex vivo airway model by 28 separate clinicians and were analyzed by the same reviewers to evaluate reproducibility. RESULTS: EAM and ETTA measurements were themselves significantly different (p = 0.0003); however, the average absolute difference between the two methods was small (Mean: 0.5 mm, 95%CI: -2.6-1.6 mm). There were notable differences between raters such that estimates of raters with more experience were more similar to ETTA. Despite observed differences between EAM and ETTA, endoscopic airway measurement was highly correlated with ETTA (p = 0.0002, Spearman r = 0.4185), and strong agreement was observed (Bias: -0.4974 ± 1.083 mm, 95% LOA: -2.62-1.625 mm). CONCLUSION: Clinical use of EAM is a valid and precise approach for quantification of airway luminal dimensions. This method may provide advantages over traditional ETTAs for evaluation of asymmetric airway morphology in the pediatric population.
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic airway measurement (EAM) combines optical endoscopic instruments with open source image processing to accurately obtain airway dimensions. Preclinical models have demonstrated EAM as an accurate technique of airway measurement with the added advantage of characterizing multilevel stenosis, non-circular lesions, and distal obstruction. The aim of this prospective clinical study was to compare EAM to airway measurements obtained from endotracheal tube approximation (ETTA) during pediatric aerodigestive evaluation and to evaluate reproducibility of EAM across practitioners. METHODS: Thirty-seven pediatric patients undergoing routine microlaryngoscopy and bronchoscopy at a single tertiary care children's hospital were prospectively recruited. Patients undergoing emergent procedures were excluded. Two blinded reviewers performed airway measurements using ImageJ (NIH) as previously described and average values were compared to ETTA measurements. Additional EAMs were obtained from an ex vivo airway model by 28 separate clinicians and were analyzed by the same reviewers to evaluate reproducibility. RESULTS:EAM and ETTA measurements were themselves significantly different (p = 0.0003); however, the average absolute difference between the two methods was small (Mean: 0.5 mm, 95%CI: -2.6-1.6 mm). There were notable differences between raters such that estimates of raters with more experience were more similar to ETTA. Despite observed differences between EAM and ETTA, endoscopic airway measurement was highly correlated with ETTA (p = 0.0002, Spearman r = 0.4185), and strong agreement was observed (Bias: -0.4974 ± 1.083 mm, 95% LOA: -2.62-1.625 mm). CONCLUSION: Clinical use of EAM is a valid and precise approach for quantification of airway luminal dimensions. This method may provide advantages over traditional ETTAs for evaluation of asymmetric airway morphology in the pediatric population.
Authors: S A R Nouraei; D W McPartlin; S M Nouraei; A Patel; C Ferguson; D J Howard; G S Sandhu Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Eric M Meisner; Gregory D Hager; Stacey L Ishman; David Brown; David E Tunkel; Masaru Ishii Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2013-05-10 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Victoria K Pepper; Ekene A Onwuka; Cameron A Best; Nakesha King; Eric Heuer; Jed Johnson; Christopher K Breuer; Jonathan M Grischkan; Tendy Chiang Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2017-03-27 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Victoria K Pepper; Christian Francom; Cameron A Best; Ekene Onwuka; Nakesha King; Eric Heuer; Nathan Mahler; Jonathan Grischkan; Christopher K Breuer; Tendy Chiang Journal: Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2016-10-06 Impact factor: 1.675
Authors: Vinciya Pandian; Christoph T Hutchinson; Adam J Schiavi; David J Feller-Kopman; Elliott R Haut; Nicole A Parsons; Jessica S Lin; Chad Gorbatkin; Priya G Angamuthu; Christina R Miller; Marek A Mirski; Nasir I Bhatti; Lonny B Yarmus Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2016-06-04 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Benjamin L Hodnett; Jeffrey P Simons; Katherine M Riera; Deepak K Mehta; Raymond C Maguire Journal: Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2015-10-30 Impact factor: 1.675
Authors: Hollin E Calloway; Julia S Kimbell; Stephanie D Davis; George Z Retsch-Bogart; Elizabeth A Pitkin; Kathleen Abode; Richard Superfine; Carlton J Zdanski Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 3.325