Accuracy Comparison between Four Methods of Endotracheal Tube Diameter Estimation for Pediatric Patients: An Observational, Cross-sectional Study

Q4 Nursing
Sendhi Putra, T. Senapathi, I. G. Hartawan, C. Ryalino, A. Pradhana
{"title":"Accuracy Comparison between Four Methods of Endotracheal Tube Diameter Estimation for Pediatric Patients: An Observational, Cross-sectional Study","authors":"Sendhi Putra, T. Senapathi, I. G. Hartawan, C. Ryalino, A. Pradhana","doi":"10.4103/bjoa.bjoa_69_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Successful intubation with the correct endotracheal tube (ETT) size is more difficult to achieve in pediatric patients. Several estimation methods exist, including ultrasonography and several conventional methods, but it is unclear which would be the most accurate method. Thus, this study aimed to compare the accuracy between several ETT diameter estimation methods. Materials and Methods: This was an observational study with a cross-sectional design. The sample includes pediatric patients (0–6 years) at a tertiary hospital recruited from January 2022 to March 2022. Primary data evaluated included age, gender, height, weight, actual ETT size used in the procedure, and the estimation of ETT size obtained by four different methods: ultrasonography, little finger diameter, little fingernail width, and age-based formula. Primary analysis was linear regression test between estimated diameter and the actual ETT diameter used in the procedure, controlling for potential confounders. The accuracy of each ETT size estimation method was seen from the values of the B and R2 coefficients from the linear regression test results. Results: Ultrasonography was found as the most accurate method, with B and R2 coefficients of 0.963 and 0.991, respectively. Among conventional methods, the diameter of the little finger was the most accurate (B = 0.918, R2 = 0.772). The age-based formula method was found to be the least accurate (B = 0.797, R2 = 0.735). Conclusion: Linear regression tests confirmed that the ultrasonography was the estimation method with the highest accuracy. For healthcare facilities with limited resources, the estimation method with little finger diameter should be considered.","PeriodicalId":8691,"journal":{"name":"Bali Journal of Anesthesiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bali Journal of Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/bjoa.bjoa_69_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Successful intubation with the correct endotracheal tube (ETT) size is more difficult to achieve in pediatric patients. Several estimation methods exist, including ultrasonography and several conventional methods, but it is unclear which would be the most accurate method. Thus, this study aimed to compare the accuracy between several ETT diameter estimation methods. Materials and Methods: This was an observational study with a cross-sectional design. The sample includes pediatric patients (0–6 years) at a tertiary hospital recruited from January 2022 to March 2022. Primary data evaluated included age, gender, height, weight, actual ETT size used in the procedure, and the estimation of ETT size obtained by four different methods: ultrasonography, little finger diameter, little fingernail width, and age-based formula. Primary analysis was linear regression test between estimated diameter and the actual ETT diameter used in the procedure, controlling for potential confounders. The accuracy of each ETT size estimation method was seen from the values of the B and R2 coefficients from the linear regression test results. Results: Ultrasonography was found as the most accurate method, with B and R2 coefficients of 0.963 and 0.991, respectively. Among conventional methods, the diameter of the little finger was the most accurate (B = 0.918, R2 = 0.772). The age-based formula method was found to be the least accurate (B = 0.797, R2 = 0.735). Conclusion: Linear regression tests confirmed that the ultrasonography was the estimation method with the highest accuracy. For healthcare facilities with limited resources, the estimation method with little finger diameter should be considered.
四种儿科患者气管插管直径估算方法的准确性比较:一项横断面观察研究
背景:在儿科患者中,使用正确的气管插管(ETT)尺寸成功插管更难实现。有几种估计方法,包括超声波和几种传统方法,但尚不清楚哪种方法最准确。因此,本研究旨在比较几种ETT直径估计方法的准确性。材料和方法:这是一项横断面设计的观察性研究。样本包括2022年1月至2022年3月在一家三级医院招募的儿科患者(0-6岁)。评估的主要数据包括年龄、性别、身高、体重、手术中使用的实际ETT大小,以及通过四种不同方法获得的ETT大小估计:超声检查、小指直径、小指甲宽度和基于年龄的公式。主要分析是估计直径和手术中使用的实际ETT直径之间的线性回归检验,控制潜在的混杂因素。从线性回归测试结果的B和R2系数的值可以看出每个ETT大小估计方法的准确性。结果:超声检查是最准确的方法,B系数和R2系数分别为0.963和0.991。在传统方法中,小指直径的估计最准确(B=0.918,R2=0.772)。基于年龄的公式法的估计最不准确(B=0.797,R2=0.735)。结论:线性回归检验证实超声是准确度最高的估计方法。对于资源有限的医疗机构,应考虑小手指直径的估计方法。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Bali Journal of Anesthesiology
Bali Journal of Anesthesiology Nursing-Emergency Nursing
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信