The Effect of Laser-Resistant Endotracheal Tube Design on Airflow Dynamics: A Benchtop and Clinical Study.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY Annals of Otology Rhinology and Laryngology Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-16 DOI:10.1177/00034894241238861
Jessica M L Pagel, Adithya Reddy, Lucy Fitzgerald, Mohamed Tiouririne, Patrick O McGarey, Daniel B Quinn, James J Daniero
{"title":"The Effect of Laser-Resistant Endotracheal Tube Design on Airflow Dynamics: A Benchtop and Clinical Study.","authors":"Jessica M L Pagel, Adithya Reddy, Lucy Fitzgerald, Mohamed Tiouririne, Patrick O McGarey, Daniel B Quinn, James J Daniero","doi":"10.1177/00034894241238861","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Compare ventilation pressures of 2 endotracheal tube designs used in laser airway surgery in clinical practice and with a benchtop model to elucidate differences and understand the design elements that impact airflow dynamics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ventilatory and aerodynamic characteristics of the laser resistant stainless-steel endotracheal tube (LRSS-ET) design and the laser resistant aluminum-wrapped silicone endotracheal tube (LRAS-ET) design were compared. Ventilatory parameters were collected for 32 patients undergoing laser-assisted airway surgery through retrospective chart review. An in vitro benchtop simulation measured average resistance and centerline turbulence intensity of both designs at various diameters and physiological frequencies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Baseline patient characteristics did not differ between the 2 groups. Clinically, the median LRAS-ET peak inspiratory pressure (PIP; 21.00 cm H<sub>2</sub>O) was significantly decreased compared to LRSS-ET PIP (34.67 cm H<sub>2</sub>O). In benchtop simulation, the average PIP of the LRAS-ET was significantly lower at all sizes and frequencies. The LRSS-ET consistently demonstrated an increased resistance, although no patterns were observed in turbulence intensity data between both designs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The benchtop model demonstrated increased resistance in the LRSS-ET compared to the LRAS-ET at all comparable sizes. This finding is supported by retrospective ventilatory pressures during laser airway surgery, which show significantly increased PIPs when comparing identically sized inner diameters. Given the equivocal turbulence intensity data, these differences in resistance and pressures are likely caused by wall roughness and intraluminal presence of tubing, not inlet or outlet geometries. The decreased PIPs of the LRAS-ET should assist in following lung protective ventilator management strategies and reduce risk of pulmonary injury and hemodynamic instability to the patient.</p>","PeriodicalId":50975,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Otology Rhinology and Laryngology","volume":" ","pages":"581-589"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Otology Rhinology and Laryngology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00034894241238861","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Compare ventilation pressures of 2 endotracheal tube designs used in laser airway surgery in clinical practice and with a benchtop model to elucidate differences and understand the design elements that impact airflow dynamics.

Methods: Ventilatory and aerodynamic characteristics of the laser resistant stainless-steel endotracheal tube (LRSS-ET) design and the laser resistant aluminum-wrapped silicone endotracheal tube (LRAS-ET) design were compared. Ventilatory parameters were collected for 32 patients undergoing laser-assisted airway surgery through retrospective chart review. An in vitro benchtop simulation measured average resistance and centerline turbulence intensity of both designs at various diameters and physiological frequencies.

Results: Baseline patient characteristics did not differ between the 2 groups. Clinically, the median LRAS-ET peak inspiratory pressure (PIP; 21.00 cm H2O) was significantly decreased compared to LRSS-ET PIP (34.67 cm H2O). In benchtop simulation, the average PIP of the LRAS-ET was significantly lower at all sizes and frequencies. The LRSS-ET consistently demonstrated an increased resistance, although no patterns were observed in turbulence intensity data between both designs.

Conclusion: The benchtop model demonstrated increased resistance in the LRSS-ET compared to the LRAS-ET at all comparable sizes. This finding is supported by retrospective ventilatory pressures during laser airway surgery, which show significantly increased PIPs when comparing identically sized inner diameters. Given the equivocal turbulence intensity data, these differences in resistance and pressures are likely caused by wall roughness and intraluminal presence of tubing, not inlet or outlet geometries. The decreased PIPs of the LRAS-ET should assist in following lung protective ventilator management strategies and reduce risk of pulmonary injury and hemodynamic instability to the patient.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
抗激光气管导管设计对气流动力学的影响:台式和临床研究
目的:比较激光气道手术中使用的两种气管导管设计在临床实践中的通气压力和台式模型的通气压力:比较激光气道手术中使用的两种气管导管设计在临床实践中的通气压力以及与台式模型的通气压力,以阐明差异并了解影响气流动力学的设计要素:比较了耐激光不锈钢气管导管(LRSS-ET)设计和耐激光铝包硅胶气管导管(LRAS-ET)设计的通气和空气动力学特性。通过回顾性病历审查收集了 32 名接受激光辅助气道手术患者的通气参数。体外台式模拟测量了两种设计在不同直径和生理频率下的平均阻力和中心线湍流强度:两组患者的基线特征没有差异。在临床上,LRAS-ET 吸气峰压(PIP;21.00 cm H2O)的中位数明显低于 LRSS-ET PIP(34.67 cm H2O)。在台式模拟中,LRAS-ET 在所有尺寸和频率下的平均 PIP 都明显较低。LRSS-ET 始终表现出阻力增大,但两种设计之间的湍流强度数据未发现任何模式:结论:与 LRAS-ET 相比,在所有可比尺寸下,台式模型的 LRSS-ET 阻力都有所增加。这一发现得到了激光气道手术期间回顾性通气压力的支持,在比较相同尺寸的内径时,PIPs 明显增加。鉴于湍流强度数据不明确,这些阻力和压力差异很可能是由管壁粗糙度和管腔内存在的管道造成的,而不是由入口或出口的几何形状造成的。LRAS-ET 减少的 PIPs 应有助于遵循肺保护通气管理策略,并降低肺损伤和患者血流动力学不稳定的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
171
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology publishes original manuscripts of clinical and research importance in otolaryngology–head and neck medicine and surgery, otology, neurotology, bronchoesophagology, laryngology, rhinology, head and neck oncology and surgery, plastic and reconstructive surgery, pediatric otolaryngology, audiology, and speech pathology. In-depth studies (supplements), papers of historical interest, and reviews of computer software and applications in otolaryngology are also published, as well as imaging, pathology, and clinicopathology studies, book reviews, and letters to the editor. AOR is the official journal of the American Broncho-Esophagological Association.
期刊最新文献
Complications of Oral Corticosteroid Use in Otolaryngology. Endonasal Thermal Imaging Before and After Nasal Airway Surgery. Semi-Quantitative Assessment of Surgical Navigation Accuracy During Endoscopic Sinus Surgery in a Real-World Environment. Letter to the Editor Regarding: "Long-Term Follow-Up of 64 Patients With Idiopathic Subglottic Stenosis: Treatment Pathways, Outcomes, and Impact of Serial Intralesional Steroid Injections". Clip Myringoplasty.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1