You are here

Article Text

Article menu

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Improving endotracheal tube placement in neonates
  1. Anip Garg1,
  2. Ajay Kumar Sinha1,2,
  3. Stephen Terence Kempley1,2
  1. 1Neonatal Unit, Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
  2. 2Centre for Genomics and Child Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Anip Garg, Neonatal Unit, Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London E1 1BB, UK; dr.anipgarg{at}gmail.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2018-314982

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    It was good to read Gill et al’s1 report on a carefully conducted randomised trial examining methods to estimate endotracheal tube (ETT) length. Together with their group’s previous trial,2 neither use of the vocal cord guide nor a gestation-based formula showed superiority over the traditional 7-8-9 rule (Tochen’s formula).

    In this recent study, under half the infants had their ETT tip in the target radiographic position, despite being intubated in the neonatal unit, rather than immediately after birth. This success rate might reflect the methods used and also indicate that ETT intubation is a complex system requiring many elements to modify practice.

    They noted that staff often secured the ETT lower than recommended. The tendency to push the tube in by an extra …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors AKS and STK provided the idea of the topic. AKS designed pro forma of audit and data collection sheet. AG collected the data and reviewed all the X-rays. STK and AKS performed statistical analysis. STK produced the initial draft of the manuscript in conjunction with AKS. All authors read, provided feedback and approved the final manuscript.

    • Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles

    • Fantoms
      Highlights from this issue
      Martin Ward Platt
      Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition 2018; 103 F295-F295 Published Online First: 19 Jun 2018. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2018-315495