Usefulness of ultrasound in confirming the correct placement of Ryle's tube compared to the traditional method of auscultation in normal versus overweight and obese patients.
{"title":"Usefulness of ultrasound in confirming the correct placement of Ryle's tube compared to the traditional method of auscultation in normal versus overweight and obese patients.","authors":"Sunil Rajan, Niranjan Kumar Sasikumar, Manu Sudevan, Rohit Paul, Pulak Tosh, Lakshmi Kumar","doi":"10.4103/joacp.joacp_237_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Auscultation to verify Ryle's tube position is difficult in obese patients. We compared the usefulness of ultrasonography (USG) versus auscultation in confirming the correct Ryle's tube placement in normal versus overweight or obese patients, time taken for confirmation, and incidence of reinsertion.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A prospective, observational study was carried out on 80 patients. Patients with a body mass index (BMI)>25 kg/m<sup>2</sup> formed group O and those with BMI <25 kg/m<sup>2</sup> constituted group N. After Ryle's tube insertion correct placement was first confirmed by auscultation. The presence of a gurgling sound over the epigastrium was graded (definite/doubtful/absent). During USG evaluation, if Ryle's tube was not visualized at the subxiphoid region, 20mL of air was injected, looking for dynamic fogging in the stomach. If auscultation yielded doubtful or absent results and USG also failed to confirm, Ryle's tube was repositioned and confirmed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Group O had a significantly higher BMI. Auscultation time and the time taken for USG confirmation were significantly longer in group O. The percentage of patients with definite auscultatory signs was significantly higher in group N. Significantly higher number of patients in group O had doubtful/absent auscultatory signs. Ryle's tube and fogging visualization with USG and the requirement of reinsertion were comparable in both groups. The percentage of patients with definite auscultatory confirmation and definite USG confirmation were comparable in group N. However, in group O, significantly lesser patients had definite auscultatory confirmation compared to definite USG signs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Confirmation of the correct placement of Ryle's tube using ultrasound is easier than auscultation in overweight and obese patients. In normal patients, both techniques are equally useful.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":" ","pages":"637-641"},"PeriodicalIF":17.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10805191/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/joacp.joacp_237_22","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and aims: Auscultation to verify Ryle's tube position is difficult in obese patients. We compared the usefulness of ultrasonography (USG) versus auscultation in confirming the correct Ryle's tube placement in normal versus overweight or obese patients, time taken for confirmation, and incidence of reinsertion.
Material and methods: A prospective, observational study was carried out on 80 patients. Patients with a body mass index (BMI)>25 kg/m2 formed group O and those with BMI <25 kg/m2 constituted group N. After Ryle's tube insertion correct placement was first confirmed by auscultation. The presence of a gurgling sound over the epigastrium was graded (definite/doubtful/absent). During USG evaluation, if Ryle's tube was not visualized at the subxiphoid region, 20mL of air was injected, looking for dynamic fogging in the stomach. If auscultation yielded doubtful or absent results and USG also failed to confirm, Ryle's tube was repositioned and confirmed.
Results: Group O had a significantly higher BMI. Auscultation time and the time taken for USG confirmation were significantly longer in group O. The percentage of patients with definite auscultatory signs was significantly higher in group N. Significantly higher number of patients in group O had doubtful/absent auscultatory signs. Ryle's tube and fogging visualization with USG and the requirement of reinsertion were comparable in both groups. The percentage of patients with definite auscultatory confirmation and definite USG confirmation were comparable in group N. However, in group O, significantly lesser patients had definite auscultatory confirmation compared to definite USG signs.
Conclusion: Confirmation of the correct placement of Ryle's tube using ultrasound is easier than auscultation in overweight and obese patients. In normal patients, both techniques are equally useful.
期刊介绍：
Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance.
Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
