Τετάρτη 10 Φεβρουαρίου 2021

(1) The Cole formula for uncuffed tubes: ID (intenal diameter) in mm= (age in years)/4 + 4 (2) The Motoyama formula for cuffed ETTs in children aged 2 yr or older: ID in mm = (age in years)/4 + 3.5 (3) The Khine formula for cuffed ETTs in children younger than 2 yr: ID in mm = (age in years)/4 + 3.0

xlomafota13 shared this article with you from Inoreader

Message:

https://resus.me/kids-tracheal-tubes-formulas-galore/

An ultrasound study of paediatric airways showed sonographic measurement to be a better predictor of tracheal tube size (using a formula – derived and then validated – to estimate external tube diameter) than traditional formulae for selecting the internal tube diameter based on age. Since the measurements, taken at the lower edge of the cricoid cartilage, were made after patients were paralyzed, and were performed without ventilation or positive end-expiratory pressure to minimize fluctuation in tracheal diameter, taking about 30 seconds, this is not something I anticipate applying in critical care practice. However, the paper does provide a good opportunity to revise some of the existing formulae. They used:
(1) The Cole formula for uncuffed tubes: ID (intenal diameter) in mm= (age in years)/4 + 4
(2) The Motoyama formula for cuffed ETTs in children aged 2 yr or older: ID in mm = (age in years)/4 + 3.5
(3) The Khine formula for cuffed ETTs in children younger than 2 yr: ID in mm = (age in years)/4 + 3.0
The formula established in the study was:

cuffed ETT outer diameter (OD) = 0.46 x (subglottic diameter) + 1.56
uncuffed ETT OD = 0.55 x (subglottic diameter) + 1.16
Age in months also correlated with optimal ETT size in mm, although the correlation was weaker than for subglottic diameter:

cuffed ETT OD = 0.027 x (age) + 5.2
uncuffed ETT OD = 0.030 x (age) + 5.4
BACKGROUND: Formulas based on age and height often fail to reliably predict the proper endotracheal tube (ETT) size in pediatric patients. We, thus, tested the hypothesis that subglottic diameter, as determined by ultrasonography, better predicts optimal ETT size than existing methods.
METHODS: A total of 192 patients, aged 1 month to 6 yr, who were scheduled for surgery and undergoing general anesthesia were enrolled and divided into development and validation phases. In the development group, the optimal ETT size was selected according to standard age-based formulas for cuffed and uncuffed tubes. Tubes were replaced as necessary until a good clinical fit was obtained. Via ultrasonography, the subglottic upper airway diameter was determined before tracheal intubation. We constructed a regression equation between the subglottic upper airway diameter and the outer diameter of the ETT finally selected. In the validation group, ETT size was selected after ultrasonography using this regression equation. The primary outcome was the fraction of initial cuffed and uncuffed tube sizes, as selected through the regression formula, that proved clinically optimal.
RESULTS: Subglottic upper airway diameter was highly correlated with outer ETT diameter deemed optimal on clinical grounds. The rate of agreement between the predicted ETT size based on ultrasonic measurement and the final ETT size selected clinically was 98% for cuffed ETTs and 96% for uncuffed ETTs.
CONCLUSIONS: Measuring subglottic airway diameter with ultrasonography facilitates the selection of appropriately sized ETTs in pediatric patients. This selection method better predicted optimal outer ETT diameter than standard age- and height-based formulas.

Prediction of Pediatric Endotracheal Tube Size by Ultrasonography
Anesthesiology. 2010 Oct;113(4):819-24

AIRWAYANAESTHESIACRITICAL CAREPAEDIATRICULTRASOUND
Post navigation
PREVIOUS POST
Two hands on the jaw for mask ventilation
NEXT POST
Fever in head injury might not be bad
3 THOUGHTS ON "KIDS TRACHEAL TUBES – FORMULAS GALORE"
Christopher
MARCH 30, 2011 AT 9:32 AM
I think the question we have in the field is not tube size but rather cuff inflation volume! Easy for adults, 10 mL until the pilot balloon feels solid. For kids do we start with 5 mL? Less? Tube size based?
All we have is a Broselow tape and cuffed tubes, no manometers to get the 20 cmH2O or less required to seal the airway.
Are there any formulas for this?

REPLY
Cliff
MARCH 30, 2011 AT 11:33 AM
Good question! I think less – in fact less even for adults check out this table http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC535565/table/T3/ which comes from the article 'Endotracheal tube cuff pressure in three hospitals, and the volume required to produce an appropriate cuff pressure' at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC535565/.
I think for kids especially a manometer is a good idea
Cliff

REPLY
Christopher
MARCH 31, 2011 AT 10:35 AM
Uh oh, field experience shows we fill the cuff with a full syringe! Likely we need to adjust our thinking and probably grab some more studies to get our protocols in order. Thank you for the link.

REPLY
LEAVE A REPLY
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Just another WordPress site
Search for:
Search …
RECENT POSTS
How far can exponential spread of coronavirus go?
Blow Them Away in Resus
Humeral Intraosseous – Stay In & Stay Straight
Analysing Difficult Resuscitation Cases – 2
Analysing Difficult Resuscitation Cases
RECENT COMMENTS
Cliff on Humeral Intraosseous – Stay In & Stay Straight
Amy on Humeral Intraosseous – Stay In & Stay Straight
Cliff on Humeral Intraosseous – Stay In & Stay Straight
David williams on Humeral Intraosseous – Stay In & Stay Straight
Cliff on Analysing Difficult Resuscitation Cases – 2
ARCHIVES
April 2020
August 2019
October 2018
April 2018
March 2018
December 2017
September 2017
August 2017
June 2017
March 2017
February 2017
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
June 2016
May 2016
December 2015
November 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
March 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
CATEGORIES
Acute Med
All Updates
Fascinomata
Guidelines
ICU
Kids
PHARM
Podcasts
Resus
Trauma
Ultrasound
Uncategorized
Video
META
Log in
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
WordPress.org
Proudly powered by WordPress

pubmed-meta-image.png

Related Articles

Accuracy of Age-Based Formula to Predict the Size and Depth of Cuffed Oral Preformed Endotracheal Tubes in Children Undergoing Tonsillectomy.

Ear Nose Throat J. 2021 Feb 09;:145561320980511

Authors: Tareerath M, Mangmeesri P

Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To retrospectively investigate the reliability of the age-based formula, year/4 + 3.5 mm in predicting size and year/2 + 12 cm in predicting insertion depth of preformed endotracheal tubes in children and correlate these data with the body mass index.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were classified into 4 groups according to their nutritional status: thinness, normal weight, overweight, and obesity; we then retrospectively compared the actual size of endotracheal tube and insertion depth to the predicting age-based formula and to the respective bend-to-tip distance of the used preformed tubes.
RESULTS: Altogether, 300 patients were included. The actual endotracheal tube size corresponded with the Motoyama formula (64.7%, 90% CI: 60.0-69.1), except for thin patients, where the calculated size was too large (0.5 mm). The insertion depth could be predicted within the range of the bend-to-tip distance and age-based formula in 85.0% (90% CI: 81.3-88.0) of patients.
CONCLUSION: Prediction of the size of cuffed preformed endotracheal tubes using the formula of Motoyama was accurate in most patients, except in thin patients (body mass index < -2 SD). The insertion depth of the tubes was mostly in the range of the age-based-formula to the bend-to-tip distance.

PMID: 33559493 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

View on the web

Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:

Δημοσίευση σχολίου

Αρχειοθήκη ιστολογίου