↓ Skip to main content

Effects of lubrication on air-sealing performance of a pediatric cuffed tracheal tube

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
5 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
Effects of lubrication on air-sealing performance of a pediatric cuffed tracheal tube
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12871-017-0416-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hiroko Nishioka, Yutaka Usuda, Go Hirabayashi, Koichi Maruyama, Tomio Andoh

Abstract

Lubrication of cuffed tracheal tubes (CTTs) reduces liquid leakage. However, it is not clear how cuff lubrication influences air leakage. We aimed to test the hypothesis that pretreatment with K-Y jelly, a water-soluble lubricant, would improve the air-sealing performance of pediatric CTTs in a model study. We placed Parker Flex-Tip™ CTT with 4.0- and 5.0-mm internal diameter (ID) into a tracheal model with 9- and 12-mm ID. The tracheal model was connected to a test lung ventilated in pressure control mode. We compared three cuff lubrication conditions: none (N), water (W), and K-Y jelly (KY). We measured the leak airway pressure (LAWP), defined as the lowest peak airway pressure (PAWP) at which leakage was detected, with the fixed cuff pressure (CP) at 20 cmH2O and varied PAWP. We also measured the leak CP (LCP), defined as the highest CP at which leakage was detected, with fixed PAWP at 25 cmH2O and varied CP. We confirmed air leakage when an apparent elevation of oxygen concentration was detected above the cuff after changing the inspiratory gas from air to oxygen. For both 4.0-mm ID and 5.0-mm ID endotracheal tubes, the KY group showed significantly higher LAWP and lower LCP than the other two groups. For the 4.0-mm ID, median values and ranges of LAWP and LCP were K-Y group: 25 (25) and 15 (15); N group: 5 (5) and 35 (35): and W group: 5 (5) and 35 (15-35) cmH2O. For the 5.0-mm ID, median values and ranges of LAWP and LCP were K-Y group: 25 (15-25) and 15 (15-35); N group: 5 (5) and 35 (35); and W group: 5 (5) and 35 (15-35) cmH2O. Water application did not change these outcomes compared with the N group. Pre-treatment of the cuff with K-Y jelly significantly improved the air-sealing performance of a pediatric CTT in our model study.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 5 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 1 20%
Other 1 20%
Student > Master 1 20%
Unknown 2 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 60%
Unknown 2 40%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 27 September 2017.
All research outputs
#6,776,172
of 11,834,771 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#220
of 630 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,277
of 267,858 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#20
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,834,771 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 630 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 267,858 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.