Publication: Comparison of the effectiveness of endotracheal tube holder with the conventional method in a manikin model
3
Issued Date
2020-10-01
Resource Type
ISSN
24522473
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85093839584
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine. Vol.20, No.4 (2020), 175-179
Suggested Citation
Karn Suttapanit, Chaiyaporn Yuksen, Kasamon Aramvanitch, Thitapohn Meemongkol, Arnon Chandech, Benjamat Songkathee, Promphet Nuanprom Comparison of the effectiveness of endotracheal tube holder with the conventional method in a manikin model. Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine. Vol.20, No.4 (2020), 175-179. doi:10.4103/2452-2473.297470 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/60051
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Comparison of the effectiveness of endotracheal tube holder with the conventional method in a manikin model
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
© 2020 Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine | Published by Wolters Kluwer-Medknow. 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.