The Experts below are selected from a list of 1377 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Dietrich Jehle - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Extubation force: tape versus endotracheal Tube Holders.
Annals of emergency medicine, 2007Co-Authors: Jestin Carlson, James Mayrose, Richard Krause, Dietrich JehleAbstract:Study objective Tape is the standard method for securing endotracheal Tubes to prevent extubation. This study examines the force required to extubate endotracheal Tubes from cadavers with either tape or one of 4 commercially available endotracheal Tube Holders. Methods Newly deceased, unembalmed cadavers were intubated with standard tracheal intubation techniques. The endotracheal Tube was secured with either tape or one of 4 commercially available endotracheal Tube Holders. The endotracheal Tube was then connected to a force-measuring device and pulled until the cuff was removed from the trachea. The largest force recorded on the device was then marked as the "extubation force" for that trial. Results When tape was used to secure the endotracheal Tube, it required a significantly larger force to extubate than 3 of 4 off-the-shelf endotracheal Tube Holders. Only the Thomas Tube Holder secured the endotracheal Tube better than tape. Conclusion Although the Thomas Tube Holder had the greatest holding force in this study, tape was shown to be the least expensive and outperformed 3 other commercially available devices used to secure endotracheal Tubes.
Jestin Carlson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Extubation force: tape versus endotracheal Tube Holders.
Annals of emergency medicine, 2007Co-Authors: Jestin Carlson, James Mayrose, Richard Krause, Dietrich JehleAbstract:Study objective Tape is the standard method for securing endotracheal Tubes to prevent extubation. This study examines the force required to extubate endotracheal Tubes from cadavers with either tape or one of 4 commercially available endotracheal Tube Holders. Methods Newly deceased, unembalmed cadavers were intubated with standard tracheal intubation techniques. The endotracheal Tube was secured with either tape or one of 4 commercially available endotracheal Tube Holders. The endotracheal Tube was then connected to a force-measuring device and pulled until the cuff was removed from the trachea. The largest force recorded on the device was then marked as the "extubation force" for that trial. Results When tape was used to secure the endotracheal Tube, it required a significantly larger force to extubate than 3 of 4 off-the-shelf endotracheal Tube Holders. Only the Thomas Tube Holder secured the endotracheal Tube better than tape. Conclusion Although the Thomas Tube Holder had the greatest holding force in this study, tape was shown to be the least expensive and outperformed 3 other commercially available devices used to secure endotracheal Tubes.
Jin Yong Jung - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Comparison of a Tube-Holder (Rescuefix) versus tape-tying for minimizing double-lumen Tube displacement during lateral positioning in thoracic surgery: A prospective, randomized controlled study.
Medicine, 2016Co-Authors: Sung Hye Byun, Su Hwang Kang, Jong Hae Kim, Taeha Ryu, Baek Jin Kim, Jin Yong JungAbstract:AbstractBackground:Double-lumen endotracheal Tubes (DLTs) are often displaced during change from the supine to the lateral decubitus position. The aim of this study was to determine whether Rescuefix, a recently developed Tube-Holder device, is more effective than the traditional tape-tying method f
Richard Krause - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Extubation force: tape versus endotracheal Tube Holders.
Annals of emergency medicine, 2007Co-Authors: Jestin Carlson, James Mayrose, Richard Krause, Dietrich JehleAbstract:Study objective Tape is the standard method for securing endotracheal Tubes to prevent extubation. This study examines the force required to extubate endotracheal Tubes from cadavers with either tape or one of 4 commercially available endotracheal Tube Holders. Methods Newly deceased, unembalmed cadavers were intubated with standard tracheal intubation techniques. The endotracheal Tube was secured with either tape or one of 4 commercially available endotracheal Tube Holders. The endotracheal Tube was then connected to a force-measuring device and pulled until the cuff was removed from the trachea. The largest force recorded on the device was then marked as the "extubation force" for that trial. Results When tape was used to secure the endotracheal Tube, it required a significantly larger force to extubate than 3 of 4 off-the-shelf endotracheal Tube Holders. Only the Thomas Tube Holder secured the endotracheal Tube better than tape. Conclusion Although the Thomas Tube Holder had the greatest holding force in this study, tape was shown to be the least expensive and outperformed 3 other commercially available devices used to secure endotracheal Tubes.
Ss Naidoo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Extubation force: A comparison of adhesive tape, non-adhesive tape and a commercial endotracheal Tube Holder
Resuscitation, 2009Co-Authors: R. Owen, Nick Castle, H. Hann, David Reeves, Raveen Naidoo, Ss NaidooAbstract:Abstract Study objective This study compares adhesive tape, non-adhesive tape and a commercial endotracheal Tube Holder in terms of the force required to extubate endotracheal Tubes from a cadaver. Methods A newly deceased, unembalmed cadaver was orotracheally intubated. Senior paramedic students secured the endotracheal Tube using adhesive tape applied using the Lillehei method, non-adhesive tape and the Thomas Tube Holder™ in a random order. The time taken to secure the endotracheal Tube and the force required to remove the distal tip of the endotracheal Tube from the glottis were recorded. Results Use of adhesive tape using the Lillehei method resulted in greatest resistance to Tube dislodgement, although it took significantly longer to apply than the other two methods. Conclusion Although the Lillehei method provided the greatest resistance to Tube dislodgement, it may not be ideal for the prehospital or emergency department context. The Thomas Tube Holder™ was quick and effective and may provide a good compromise in these environments, although once time is no longer important, clinicians may elect to revert to the Lillehei method which provides greater security.
