Cargando…

Comparison of the effectiveness of endotracheal tube holder with the conventional method in a manikin model

OBJECTIVES: Endotracheal tube (ETT) displacement occurs by improper fixation. To fix an ETT, many types of fixation tools are employed. Thomas tube holder is one of the fixation tools widely used in many countries. This study aims to compare the ETT fixation using the Thomas tube holder with the con...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Suttapanit, Karn, Yuksen, Chaiyaporn, Aramvanitch, Kasamon, Meemongkol, Thitapohn, Chandech, Arnon, Songkathee, Benjamat, Nuanprom, Promphet
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7549516/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33089025
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2452-2473.297470
_version_ 1783592809760030720
author Suttapanit, Karn
Yuksen, Chaiyaporn
Aramvanitch, Kasamon
Meemongkol, Thitapohn
Chandech, Arnon
Songkathee, Benjamat
Nuanprom, Promphet
author_facet Suttapanit, Karn
Yuksen, Chaiyaporn
Aramvanitch, Kasamon
Meemongkol, Thitapohn
Chandech, Arnon
Songkathee, Benjamat
Nuanprom, Promphet
author_sort Suttapanit, Karn
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Endotracheal tube (ETT) displacement occurs by improper fixation. To fix an ETT, many types of fixation tools are employed. Thomas tube holder is one of the fixation tools widely used in many countries. This study aims to compare the ETT fixation using the Thomas tube holder with the conventional method (adhesive tape) in a mannequin model. METHODS: The fixation tools were random, using the box of six randomizes to Thomas tube holder and conventional method. After fixation, the mannequin model was being logged roll, chest compression by automated chest compression machine, and transported by the paramedic. The time to ETT fixation and displacements were recorded. RESULTS: The mean time (standard deviation) to fixate an ETT was shorter (33.0 s [7.3]) with a Thomas tube holder compared to adhesive tape (52.6 s [7.3], P < 0.001). The number and proportion of the ETT displacements were significantly less with Thomas tube holder compared to adhesive tape during log roll (16, 35.6% vs. 29, 64.4%, P = 0.011), chest compression with automated machine (23, 51.1% vs. 37, 82.2%, P = 0.003), and transport (26, 57.8% vs. 40, 88.9%, P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The Thomas tube holder is more effective than adhesive tape in preventing ETT displacement in a mannequin subjected to log roll, chest compressions, and transportation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7549516
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75495162020-10-20 Comparison of the effectiveness of endotracheal tube holder with the conventional method in a manikin model Suttapanit, Karn Yuksen, Chaiyaporn Aramvanitch, Kasamon Meemongkol, Thitapohn Chandech, Arnon Songkathee, Benjamat Nuanprom, Promphet Turk J Emerg Med Original Article OBJECTIVES: Endotracheal tube (ETT) displacement occurs by improper fixation. To fix an ETT, many types of fixation tools are employed. Thomas tube holder is one of the fixation tools widely used in many countries. This study aims to compare the ETT fixation using the Thomas tube holder with the conventional method (adhesive tape) in a mannequin model. METHODS: The fixation tools were random, using the box of six randomizes to Thomas tube holder and conventional method. After fixation, the mannequin model was being logged roll, chest compression by automated chest compression machine, and transported by the paramedic. The time to ETT fixation and displacements were recorded. RESULTS: The mean time (standard deviation) to fixate an ETT was shorter (33.0 s [7.3]) with a Thomas tube holder compared to adhesive tape (52.6 s [7.3], P < 0.001). The number and proportion of the ETT displacements were significantly less with Thomas tube holder compared to adhesive tape during log roll (16, 35.6% vs. 29, 64.4%, P = 0.011), chest compression with automated machine (23, 51.1% vs. 37, 82.2%, P = 0.003), and transport (26, 57.8% vs. 40, 88.9%, P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The Thomas tube holder is more effective than adhesive tape in preventing ETT displacement in a mannequin subjected to log roll, chest compressions, and transportation. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2020-10-07 /pmc/articles/PMC7549516/ /pubmed/33089025 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2452-2473.297470 Text en Copyright: © 2020 Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Suttapanit, Karn
Yuksen, Chaiyaporn
Aramvanitch, Kasamon
Meemongkol, Thitapohn
Chandech, Arnon
Songkathee, Benjamat
Nuanprom, Promphet
Comparison of the effectiveness of endotracheal tube holder with the conventional method in a manikin model
title Comparison of the effectiveness of endotracheal tube holder with the conventional method in a manikin model
title_full Comparison of the effectiveness of endotracheal tube holder with the conventional method in a manikin model
title_fullStr Comparison of the effectiveness of endotracheal tube holder with the conventional method in a manikin model
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the effectiveness of endotracheal tube holder with the conventional method in a manikin model
title_short Comparison of the effectiveness of endotracheal tube holder with the conventional method in a manikin model
title_sort comparison of the effectiveness of endotracheal tube holder with the conventional method in a manikin model
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7549516/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33089025
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2452-2473.297470
work_keys_str_mv AT suttapanitkarn comparisonoftheeffectivenessofendotrachealtubeholderwiththeconventionalmethodinamanikinmodel
AT yuksenchaiyaporn comparisonoftheeffectivenessofendotrachealtubeholderwiththeconventionalmethodinamanikinmodel
AT aramvanitchkasamon comparisonoftheeffectivenessofendotrachealtubeholderwiththeconventionalmethodinamanikinmodel
AT meemongkolthitapohn comparisonoftheeffectivenessofendotrachealtubeholderwiththeconventionalmethodinamanikinmodel
AT chandecharnon comparisonoftheeffectivenessofendotrachealtubeholderwiththeconventionalmethodinamanikinmodel
AT songkatheebenjamat comparisonoftheeffectivenessofendotrachealtubeholderwiththeconventionalmethodinamanikinmodel
AT nuanprompromphet comparisonoftheeffectivenessofendotrachealtubeholderwiththeconventionalmethodinamanikinmodel