↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of the optimal cuff volume and cuff pressure of the revised laryngeal tube “LTS-D” in surgical patients

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation of the optimal cuff volume and cuff pressure of the revised laryngeal tube “LTS-D” in surgical patients
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12871-017-0308-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marc Kriege, Christian Alflen, Johannes Eisel, Thomas Ott, Tim Piepho, Ruediger R. Noppens

Abstract

Recent case reports have indicated significant cuff overinflation when using the standard filling volume based on the manufacturer's recommendations in older models of laryngeal tubes. The aim of this study was to determine the minimum cuff pressure needed to perform standardized ventilation without leakage in the new, revised model of the laryngeal tube "LTS-D". After ethical approval, LTS-D was placed for ventilation in 60 anesthetized patients. The cuff was inflated to the recommended volume (#3: 60 ml, #4: 80 ml, and #5: 90 ml). After evaluation of the initial cuff pressure (CP), the CP was lowered in 10 cmH2O steps until a minimal cuff pressure of 30 cmH2O was achieved. The absence of an audible leak was required for a step-by-step reduction in the CP. Evacuated cuff volume, success rate, and airway injuries were documented. Data were expressed as medians (interquartile ranges [IQRs]). The comparison of CPs and cuff volumes was performed using the Mann-Whitney test. After initial inflation, the CP ranged from 105 cmH2O [90-120; #5] to 120 cmH2O [110-120; #3]. Lowering the CP to 60 cmH2O resulted in a reduced cuff volume ranging from 47 ml [44-54; #3] to 77 ml [75-82; #5] compared to the initial inflation (p < 0.001). Leakage occurred more frequently when the CP was lowered to 40 cmH2O compared to the initial inflation (44/54 [81%]; p < 0.01). Using a CP between 50 cmH2O and 60 cmH2O, a leakage rate of 3/54 (5%) was observed, compared to a rate of 11/54 (21%) when using a CP lower than 50 cmH2O. The overall success rate was 90%, and airway injury occurred in 7% of patients (4/60). We found significant overinflation of the revised LTS-D using the recommended volume for initial cuff inflation. A CP of 60 cmH2O was found to be sufficient for ventilation in the majority of patients evaluated. Checking and adjusting the CP in laryngeal tubes is mandatory to avoid overinflation. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02300337 . Registered: 20 November 2014.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Other 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 18 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Psychology 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 18 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 May 2017.
All research outputs
#12,827,208
of 22,950,943 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#349
of 1,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,770
of 420,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#8
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,950,943 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,504 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 420,304 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.