Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 Apr;5(2):185-9.
doi: 10.4103/1658-354X.82795.

Is sealing cuff pressure, easy, reliable and safe technique for endotracheal tube cuff inflation?: A comparative study

Roshdi R Al-Metwalli  1 , Abdulmohsen A Al-Ghamdi, Hany A Mowafi, Sayed Sadek, Mohammed Abdulshafi, Wesam F Mousa
Affiliations

Is sealing cuff pressure, easy, reliable and safe technique for endotracheal tube cuff inflation?: A comparative study

Roshdi R Al-Metwalli et al. Saudi J Anaesth. 2011 Apr.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the three common methods of endotracheal tube cuff inflation (sealing pressure, precise standard pressure or finger estimation) regarding the effective tracheal seal and the incidence of post-intubation airway complications.

Methods: Seventy-five adult patients scheduled for N(2) O free general anesthesia were enrolled in this study. After induction of anesthesia, endotracheal tubes size 7.5 mm for female and 8.0 mm for male were used. Patients were randomly assigned into one of three groups. Control group (n=25), the cuff was inflated to a pressure of 25 cm H(2)O; sealing group (n=25), the cuff was inflated to prevent air leaks at airway pressure of 20 cm H(2)O and finger group (n=25), the cuff was inflated using finger estimation. Tracheal leaks, incidence of sore throat, hoarseness and dysphagia were tested.

Results: Although cuff pressure was significantly low in the sealing group compared to the control group (P<0.001), the incidence of sore throat was similar in both groups. On the other hand, cuff pressure as well as the incidence of sore throat were significantly higher in the finger group compared to both the control and the sealing group (P<0.001 and P=0.008). The incidence of dysphagia and hoarseness were similar in the three groups. None of the patients in the three groups developed air leak around the endotracheal tube cuff..

Conclusions: In N(2)O, free anesthesia sealing cuff pressure is an easy, undemanding and safe alternative to the standard technique, regarding effective sealing and low incidence of sore throat.

Keywords: Airway Morbidity; cuff pressure; endotracheal tube.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
ETT cuff pressure (cm H2O) and air volume (ml) used to fill the cuff in the three groups. (*) Indicates significant difference between control and sealing group. (**) Indicates significant difference between finger and other two groups. (#) Indicates insignificant difference between control and sealing group
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Mandoe H, Nikolajsen L, Lintrup U, Jepsen D, Molgaard J. Sore throat after endotracheal intubation. Anesth Analg. 1992;74:897–900. - PubMed
    1. Nordin U, Lindholm CE, Wolgast M. Blood flow in the rabbit tracheal mucosa under normal conditions and under the influence of tracheal intubation. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1977;21:81–94. - PubMed
    1. Seegobin RD, van Hesselt GL. Endotracheal cuff pressure and tracheal mucosal blood flow: Endoscopic study of effects of four large volume cuffs. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1984;288:965–8. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Loeser EA, Orr DL, 2nd, Bennett GM, Stanley TH. Endotracheal tube cuff design and postoperative sore throat. Anesthesiology. 1976;45:684–7. - PubMed
    1. Loeser EA, Machin R, Colley J, Orr D, 2nd, Bennett GM, Stanley TH. Postoperative sore throat–importance of endotracheal tube conformity versus cuff design. Anesthesiology. 1978;49:430–2. - PubMed