Laksono Buyung Hartiyo, Isngadi Isngadi, Wicaksono Satria Jati
Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, Medicine Faculty, Brawijaya University, Dr. Saiful Anwar General Hospital, Malang, Indonesia.
Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim. 2021 Apr;49(2):114-117. doi: 10.5152/TJAR.2020.80. Epub 2020 Nov 30.
This study aimed to compare the accuracy of the endotracheal tube (ETT) cuff pressure of the manual palpation (MP), passive release (PR), and minimum occlusive volume (MOV) techniques.
This study is a true experiment with simple randomisation. The subjects of this study were 105 patients divided into 3 groups: MP group (n=35), PR group (n=35), and MOV group (n=35). After intubation, ETT cuff inflation was performed using 3 different techniques. The ETT cuff pressure was recorded using a manometer. The data were analysed using the chi-square test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and Mann-Whitney test in the SPSS 20 software.
The mean ETT cuff pressure was 60.2±28.8 cmHO in the MP group, 30.4±5.5 cmHO in the PR group, and 25.8±9.6 cmHO in the MOV group (p=0.000). The PR group had the highest pressure accuracy (77%) (p=0.000).
The PR technique had the highest accuracy and can be used as an alternative ETT cuff inflation technique in the absence of a manometer.
本研究旨在比较手动触诊（MP）、被动释放（PR）和最小闭合容量（MOV）技术测量气管内导管（ETT）套囊压力的准确性。
本研究为采用简单随机化的真实验。本研究的受试者为105例患者，分为3组：MP组（n = 35）、PR组（n = 35）和MOV组（n = 35）。插管后，使用3种不同技术进行ETT套囊充气。使用压力计记录ETT套囊压力。在SPSS 20软件中使用卡方检验、Kruskal-Wallis检验和Mann-Whitney检验对数据进行分析。
MP组ETT套囊平均压力为60.2±28.8 cmH₂O，PR组为30.4±5.5 cmH₂O，MOV组为25.8±9.6 cmH₂O（p = 0.000）。PR组压力准确性最高（77%）（p = 0.000）。
PR技术准确性最高，在没有压力计的情况下可作为ETT套囊充气的替代技术。
