| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2023 | Volume
: 12
| Issue : 1 | Page : 30 |
|
|
Comparison of the effectiveness of two types of commercial endotracheal tube holders, with the conventional method in a manikin model
Mehdi Nasr Isfahani1, Alireza Abootalebi1, Khatere Ghaznavi1, Leila Kamali Dolatabadi2
1 Department of Emergency Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2 Al-Zahra Research Institute, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Khatere Ghaznavi
Department of Emergency Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan
Iran
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/abr.abr_192_21
|
|
|
Background: Endotracheal intubation is employed to create a safe airway in patients requiring mechanical ventilation. The relatively high prevalence rate of unplanned displacement of the endotracheal tube (ETT) can be associated with serious complications. This study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a newly designed tube holder in Iran (Irafit), the Thomas ETT holder and the traditional method using adhesive tape.
Materials and Methods: The present manikin-based study was performed on the human mannequin. For this purpose, the mannequin was first subjected to oral intubation by a skilled emergency medicine specialist. Then, three methods of adhesive tape, Irafit-ETT holder, and Thomas-ETT holder were used. The mean of displacement in width of the mouth, length of the ETT, and depth as well as ETT removal was recorded.
Results: The results of the present study revealed that the displacement in depth was significantly less in the Irafit-ETT holder as compared with the other two groups following the application of a tug (P < 0.001). The displacement in the length of the ETT with and without the application of a tug was significantly less in the Irafit-ETT holder and Thomas-ETT holder groups as compared with the adhesive tape group (P < 0.001).
Conclusion: According to the results of the present study, it can be stated that both ETT holder devices (Thomas vs. Irafit) were not distinct in terms of displacements in length and width; however, the Iranian model was more successful in minimizing the displacement in depth.
|
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
