http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1926-4191
Abstract
Background
Sore throat is common after tracheal intubation. Water can be used to lubricate tracheal tubes, but its benefit has not been validated. We thus did a randomised non-inferiority trial to test the hypothesis that a tube lubricated with water does not reduce sore throat after tracheal intubation.
Methods
We randomized female or male patients (n = 296) undergoing surgery in the ears or eyes to receive either a tube lubricated with water or a tube without lubrication for intubation. We assessed sore throat at 0, 2, 4, and 24 h after surgery; pharyngeal injury at 2 and 24 h after surgery; and respiratory infections within 7 days after surgery. For the incidence of sore throat within 24 h after surgery (primary outcome), the two-sided 90% confidence interval of the risk difference was compared with the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 15%. Other outcomes were analyzed with two-sided superiority tests.
Results
The incidence of sore throat within 24 h after surgery was 80/147 (54.4%) in the non-lubricated tube group and 83/149 (55.7%) in the water-lubricated tube group (risk difference -1.3%, 90% confidence interval -10.9% to 8.3%). Because the confidence interval was below the non-inferiority margin, the incidence of sore throat was not higher in the non-lubricated tube group than in the water-lubricated tube group. There was no significant association between groups in the sore throat, pharyngeal injury, and respiratory infection at each assessment time.
Figures
Citation: Kim E, Yang SM, Kwak SG, Park S, Bahk J-H, Seo J-H (2018) Tracheal tubes lubricated with water to reduce sore throat after intubation: A randomized non-inferiority trial. PLoS ONE 13(10): e0204846. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204846
Editor: Iratxe Puebla, Public Library of Science, UNITED KINGDOM
Received: February 26, 2018; Accepted: September 11, 2018; Published: October 4, 2018
Copyright: © 2018 Kim et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Sore throat is common after tracheal intubation [1–21]. Various drugs [7,9,12,13,15,16,19] or lubricants [5,10,14,17,18] have been introduced to reduce the sore throat although some methods seem to be applied without evidence. Moreover, these pharmacological interventions may not only affect the sore throat but also cause side effects.
Water has lubricating properties without pharmacological side effects and thus can be safely used to lubricate medical devices so that it may decrease trauma during manipulation of the devices [9,10,17,18,22–25]. Water is also conventionally used for lubricating tracheal tubes in order to reduce sore throat or airway injury associated with intubation, but its benefit has not been validated in tracheal tubes.
To lubricate a tracheal tube with water before intubation, the distal portion of the tube can be put into a water bottle, or some water can be applied to the external surface of the tube. However, such treatment may contaminate the tube and thus lead to respiratory infection after tracheal intubation. We thus performed a randomized non-inferiority trial to test the hypothesis that a tube lubricated with water does not reduce sore throat after tracheal intubation compared to a tube without lubrication in surgical patients undergoing general anesthesia. We also compared postoperative airway injury and respiratory infection between the use of a water-lubricated tube and the use of a non-lubricated tube for tracheal intubation.
Materials and methods
Patients
This trial was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Seoul National University Hospital (H-1506-125-684) and was compliant to the CONSORT checklist (S1 Checklist). Its protocol was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02492646) and published [26]. Written informed consent was obtained from each patient prior to the study. We enrolled female or male patients aged 20–80 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of I–III, and undergoing elective surgery in the ears or eyes under general anaesthesia with orotracheal intubation between August 2015 and January 2017. We excluded patients with preoperative sore throat, hoarseness, respiratory infections, gastro-esophageal reflux, history of airway surgery, abnormality in the upper airway, and anticipated difficult intubation such as Mallampati class of ≥ III or thyromental distance of < 6.5 cm.
Patients were randomized to receive either a tube lubricated with water or a tube without lubrication for tracheal intubation. An unrelated assistant created a randomization in a 1:1 ratio with random block sizes of 4 or 6 using an online tool (http://www.randomization.com) and concealed the allocation sequence in sealed opaque envelopes.
Preparation of tracheal tubes
A nurse unaware of the study protocol prepared a disposable tracheal tube made of polyvinyl chloride (Unomedical, Kedah, Malaysia) in an aseptic manner. The inner diameter of the tube was 7.0 mm for women and 7.5 mm for men. In the water-lubricated tube group, the tube was placed in a 1-L bottle of sterile saline (Daihan Pharm, Seoul, Korea) with a room temperature of 22 ± 1°C according to the conventional protocol at our institution. The distal half of the tube was immersed in the water. In the non-lubricated tube group, the tube was kept in the sterile package without any treatment until intubation. The tube cuff was completely deflated before intubation.
Anesthesia
Without premedication, patients were monitored with pulse oximetry, electrocardiography, non-invasive blood pressure, bispectral index (A-2000 XP; Aspect Medical Systems, Newton, MA, USA) and acceleromyography (TOF-watch; Organon Ltd., Dublin, Ireland). Patients received forced-air warming with a full-body blanket (Model 300; 3M Bair Hugger, Eden Prairie, MN, USA) at a set temperature of 43°C. In the supine position, the patient’s head was placed on an incompressible pillow of 7-cm height.
Anesthesia was induced by intravenous propofol 1.5–2.0 mg kg-1 and fentanyl 1 μg kg-1. The acceleromyograph was calibrated and stabilized by a 50-Hz tetanic stimulation for 5 sec followed by serial train-of-four (TOF) measurements within a 5% variation. [27] Rocuronium 0.6–0.8 mg kg-1 was given and TOF counts were monitored every 15 s at the adductor pollicis muscle.
At a TOF count of 0 and bispectral index of < 60, an investigator (EK) intubated the patient’s trachea using either a water-lubricated or a non-lubricated tube via direct laryngoscopy with a Macintosh 3 or 4 blade. If the intubation failed, it was retried after the tube was shaped like a hockey-stick with a stylet. Tracheal intubation was achieved with video laryngoscopy (UESCOPE; UM Medical Devices, Newton, MA, USA) or fiberoptic bronchoscopy (LF-GP; Olympus Optical Co., Tokyo, Japan) after two failures of direct laryngoscopy. After intubation, the intracuff pressure of the tube was adjusted to less than 25 cmH2O (VBM Medizintechnik GmBH, Sulz am Neckar, Germany) [6].
Anesthetists unrelated to the study maintained anesthesia with 1.0–1.5 minimum alveolar concentration of desflurane to obtain a bispectral index of < 60. Rocuronium 0.2–0.4 mg kg-1 was given at a TOF count of ≥ 1. The patient’s lungs were ventilated with a tidal volume of 6–8 mg∙kg-1, positive end-expiratory pressure of 5–10 cmH2O, respiratory rate of 10–16 min-1, and inspired oxygen fraction of 0.4–0.6 (Avance; GE Datex-Ohmeda, Munich, Germany). A mixture of oxygen and air was supplied with a 2 L∙min-1 of gas flow.
After surgery, pyridostigmine 0.3 mg kg-1 and glycopyrrolate 0.01 mg kg-1 were administered at a TOF count of ≥ 2. An investigator (J-HS) extubated the trachea when the patient had spontaneous breathing and responses to verbal commands at a TOF ratio of > 0.9 and bispectral index of > 60. Patients were transferred to the post-anesthesia room. Postoperative pain was assessed with a 10-point scale (0, no pain; 10, worst pain imaginable) and fentanyl 25–50 μg was given at the pain score of > 4 or at the patient’s request. Patients were discharged from the hospital when they were able to walk and eat food without severe pain or complications.
Outcomes
Before surgery, an investigator (SMY) evaluated the patient’s airway with the thyromental distance and Mallampati class. Before intubation, another investigator (EK) performed manual ventilation in the sniffing position without an oropharyngeal airway and graded it as easy, moderate, or difficult ventilation. During intubation, the investigator assessed the Cormack-Lehane grade, the time and number of attempts for intubation, and the resistance of the tube as it passed the glottis. The intubation time was defined as the interval between the insertion of the laryngoscopic blade into the mouth and the inflation of the tube cuff after successful intubation [19]. The resistance of the tube was graded as none, mild, moderate, or severe resistance [20,21]. Mean blood pressure and heart rate were measured immediately before and one minute after intubation. After extubation, an investigator (J-HS) checked for blood in the oral cavity or on the tube surface and recorded the interval between the discontinuation of desflurane and tracheal extubation.
At 0, 2, 4, and 24 h after surgery, an investigator (SMY) asked patients two questions: “Do you have any discomfort after surgery?” and then “Do you have a sore throat?”. Sore throat was graded into four severity levels as follows: no symptom, mild throat pain only upon the second question, moderate pain in response to the first question, and severe pain with change of voice or hoarseness [12,15,17–19]. At 2 and 24 h after surgery, the investigator examined the pharynx using a penlight and tongue depressor and recorded the site and type of injury. The site was classified as uvula, posterior wall, tonsillar pillar or fossa, and vallecula; and the type as hyperemia, edema, hematoma, and others [20,21]. Seven days after surgery, the investigator asked patients about symptoms or medications of postoperative respiratory infections. The symptom was categorized as cough, sputum, rhinorrhea, sore tongue, myalgia, fever, and others. If the patient was discharged from the hospital, they were contacted by phone.
Patients and investigators were blinded to group assignment except for the intubator (EK). The primary outcome was the incidence of sore throat within 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes were the resistance while the tracheal tube passed the glottis, sore throat, pharyngeal injury, and respiratory infection at each assessment time.
Statistical analysis
In a previous study [19], 57% of patients complained of sore throat within 24 h after tracheal intubation with water-lubricated tubes. Considering a non-inferiority margin of 15%, 135 patients were needed in each group with a power of 0.8 and one-sided α of 0.05 (PASS version 11.0; NCSS, Kaysville, UT, USA).
Continuous variables were presented as mean ± SD or median (IQR) after checking the normality with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and analyzed with two or paired sample t-tests or with Mann-Whitney U or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Categorical variables were the number of patients and were compared with chi-squared test or with Fisher’s exact test if two of the frequency cell were smaller than 5. For the incidence of postoperative sore throat (primary outcome), the two-sided 90% (1–2α) confidence interval of the risk difference was compared with the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 15%. Non-inferiority was accepted for the non-lubricated tube over the water-lubricated tube if the upper limit of the confidence interval was less than the non-inferiority margin. Secondary outcomes were analyzed with two-sided superiority tests. A P-value of < 0.05 was considered significant. A medical statistician (SGK) unrelated to data collection analyzed the outcomes with SPSS (version 21.0; IBM, Chicago, IL, USA) and STATA (Special Edition 14.2; Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA).
Results
After screening 300 patients, 296 patients were randomized to the water-lubricated (n = 149) or non-lubricated (n = 147) tube groups (Fig 1). There was no significant association in patient characteristics (Table 1) and preoperative airway evaluation (Table 2).
At seven days after surgery, patients were asked by phone call whether they had respiratory infection since the surgery.
We achieved tracheal intubation with direct laryngoscopy at the first or second attempts in all patients and thus did not use the video laryngoscope or fiberoptic bronchoscope. During intubation, the tube passed the glottis with lower resistance in the water-lubricated tube group than in the non-lubricated tube group (Table 2; P = 0.001 by Fisher’s exact test). No significant association was found in the time or number of attempts for intubation. Mean blood pressure and heart rate significantly increased after tracheal intubation in both groups (P < 0.001 in each group, paired sample t-test), but did not differ between groups before and after intubation (Table 2).
Within 24 h after surgery, sore throat was observed in 80 patients (54.4%) of the non-lubricated tube group and in 83 patients (55.7%) of the water-lubricated tube group (Fig 2; risk difference -1.3%, 90% confidence interval -10.9% to 8.3%). Because the upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was less than the non-inferiority margin of 15%, non-inferiority was accepted for the non-lubricated tube over the water-lubricated tube. Therefore, the incidence of sore throat was not higher in the non-lubricated tube group than in the water-lubricated tube group. There was no significant association between groups in the incidence or severity of sore throat at 0, 2, 4 and 24 h after surgery (Fig 3) and in the site and type of pharyngeal injury at 2 and 24 h after surgery (Fig 4).
The upper limit of the confidence interval is less than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin. This means that the incidence of sore throat is not higher in the non-lubricated tube group than in the water-lubricated tube group.
P values are 0.851, 0.922, 0.741, and 0.957 at 0, 2, 4, and 24 h after surgery, respectively, by chi-squared tests.
At 2 h after surgery (A), P values are 0.059, 0.565, 0.467, 0.634, and 0.979 in the uvula, pharyngeal wall, tonsillar pillar, tonsillar fossa, and vallecula, respectively, by chi-squared tests. At 24 h after surgery (B), P values are 0.083, 0.769, 0.962, 0.645, and 0.4000 in the same order as the fig A.
Seven days after surgery, 13 patients (9.6%) in the water-lubricated tube group and 17 patients (13.1%) in the non-lubricated tube group did not respond to phone call (Fig 1). We thus asked 136 patients (91.3%) in the water-lubricated tube group and 130 patients (88.4%) in the non-lubricated tube group about symptoms or medications for respiratory infections (Fig 1) and observed no significant association between groups (Table 2). In the water-lubricated tube group, we found two patients with cough and sputum, two patients with cough with rhinorrhea, one patient with cough and medication, one with sputum and medication, and one with rhinorrhea and medications. In the non-lubricated tube group, we found one patient with cough, sputum, and rhinorrhea, one patient with cough and sputum, three patients with cough and rhinorrhea, one with cough and myalgia, one with cough and medication, one with sputum and rhinorrhea, and one with sputum and medication.
Discussion
Water can reduce the friction between the tracheal tube and airway tissues during intubation because of its lubricating effect [22–25]. In our study, the water-lubricated tube passed the glottis with lower resistance than the non-lubricated tube although the resistance was assessed subjectively by the unblinded investigator. However, no significant association was found in the time or number of attempts for intubation and hemodynamic changes during intubation. Therefore, the water-lubricated tube may neither improve performance nor reduce noxious stimuli during tracheal intubation.
Sore throat is reported in up to 90% of patients within 24 h after general anesthesia [1,2,4–21]. Its main cause is known to be inflammation of the airway tissues damaged by intubation [5,6,12–14,16–19]. Therefore, the sore throat is known to be attenuated by steroids such as dexamethasone [13,16] and bethamethasone [5, 14] or non-steroidal drugs such as benzydamine hydrochloride [12, 17, 18], ketoprofen [7], aspirin [12], ketamine [15], and magnesium [19] that have topical [5,12,14,15,17–19] or systemic [7,13,16] anti-inflammatory effects. However, lubricants without anti-inflammatory actions may be ineffective [6,14] or even harmful [1,2] for the sore throat. Because water has only lubricating but not anti-inflammatory effects, it was unlikely to reduce postoperative sore throat in our study.
Tracheal tubes can damage upper airway tissues during intubation [6, 20, 21, 28–30]. The incidences of airway injuries were reported to be 33% in the larynx, 19% in the pharynx, and 15% in the trachea [28]. Although laryngeal injury is most common during intubation, [6,20,21,28] laryngoscopic examination may cause not only discomfort [31] but also sore throat [32,33] in awake patients. We thus only examined pharyngeal injury and found no significant association between groups. Because pharyngeal injury is associated with sore throat [28,34,35], it may also explain the similar incidence of postoperative sore throat between groups in our study.
Mechanical ventilation may cause respiratory infection [36–38]. The infection is associated with the duration of the ventilation [37], and the tracheal tube is a major infection source [36–40]. Patients in our study received sterile tracheal tubes and then mechanical ventilation for less than 4 h. As a result, we found no significant association in postoperative respiratory infections between groups, although this might be underpowered due to missing data. However, any external treatment could contaminate the tracheal tube and thus should be avoided unless it has definite advantages.
This study has limitations. Because sore throat is a subjective symptom, its assessment may differ according to the questioning method [2,3,6]. To minimize bias in our study, one blinded assessor interviewed all patients with the same questions and graded the severity based on previous studies [12,15,17–19]. Furthermore, we only evaluated symptoms but not pathogens or protein analysis for respiratory infections because most microorganisms cultured on the tube are known to be normal flora in the oropharynx [36,39,40,41]. In addition, we only studied tracheal tubes made of polyvinyl chloride, so our findings may not be extrapolated to other types of tubes.
In conclusion, the tube lubricated with water did not reduce sore throat and airway injury after tracheal intubation compared to the tube without lubrication. Therefore, it seems unnecessary to lubricate the tracheal tube with water before intubation.
References
- 1. Conway CM, Miller JS, Sugden FL. Sore throat after anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 1960; 32: 219–223. pmid:13811654
- 2. Loeser EA, Kaminsky A, Diaz A, Stanley TH, Pace NL. The influence of endotracheal tube cuff design and cuff lubrication on postoperative sore throat. Anesthesiology. 1983; 58: 376–379. pmid:6837979
- 3. Harding CJ, McVey FK. Interview method affects incidence of postoperative sore throat. Anaesthesia. 1987; 42: 1104–1107. pmid:3688395
- 4. Christensen AM, Willemoes-Larsen H, Lundby L, Jakobsen KB. Postoperative throat complaints after tracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth. 1994; 73: 786–787. pmid:7880666
- 5. Ayoub CM, Ghobashy A, Koch ME, McGrimley L, Pascale V, Qadir S, et al. Widespread application of topical steroids to decrease sore throat, hoarseness, and cough after tracheal intubation. Anesth Analg. 1998; 87: 714–716. pmid:9728859
- 6. McHardy FE, Chung F. Postoperative sore throat: cause, prevention and treatment. Anaesthesia. 1999; 54: 444–53. pmid:10995141
- 7. Ozaki M, Minami K, Sata T, Shigematsu A. Transdermal ketoprofen mitigates the severity of postoperative sore throat. Can J Anaesth. 2001; 48: 1080–1083. pmid:11744583
- 8. Higgins PP, Chung F, Mezei G. Postoperative sore throat after ambulatory surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2002; 88: 582–584. pmid:12066737
- 9. Soltani HA, Aghadavoudi O. The effect of different lidocaine application methods on postoperative cough and sore throat. J Clin Anesth. 2002; 14: 15–18. pmid:11880016
- 10. Estebe JP, Delahaye S, Le Corre P, Dollo G, Le Naoures A, Chevanne F, et al. Alkalinization of intra-cuff lidocaine and use of gel lubrication protect against tracheal tube-induced emergence phenomena. Br J Anaesth. 2004; 92: 361–366. pmid:14970135
- 11. Maruyama K, Sakai H, Miyazawa H, Toda N, Iinuma Y, Mochizuki N, et al. Sore throat and hoarseness after total intravenous anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2004; 92: 541–543. pmid:14766717
- 12. Agarwal A, Nath SS, Goswami D, Gupta D, Dhiraaj S, Singh PK. An evaluation of the efficacy of aspirin and benzydamine hydrochloride gargle for attenuating postoperative sore throat: a prospective, randomized, single-blind study. Anesth Analg. 2006; 103: 1001–1003. pmid:17000820
- 13. Thomas S, Beevi S. Dexamethasone reduces the severity of postoperative sore throat. Can J Anaesth. 2007; 54: 897–891. pmid:17975234
- 14. Sumathi PA, Shenoy T, Ambareesha M, Krishna HM. Controlled comparison between betamethasone gel and lidocaine jelly applied over tracheal tube to reduce postoperative sore throat, cough, and hoarseness of voice. Br J Anaesth. 2008; 100: 215–218. pmid:18024955
- 15. Canbay O, Celebi N, Sahin A, Celiker V, Ozgen S, Aypar U. Ketamine gargle for attenuating postoperative sore throat. Br J Anaesth. 2008; 100: 490–493. pmid:18310675
- 16. Park SH, Han SH, Do SH, Kim JW, Rhee KY, Kim JH. Prophylactic dexamethasone decreases the incidence of sore throat and hoarseness after tracheal extubation with a double-lumen endobronchial tube. Anesth Analg. 2008; 107: 1814–1818. pmid:19020122
- 17. Huang YS, Hung NK, Lee MS, Kuo CP, Yu JC, Huang GS, et al. The effectiveness of benzydamine hydrochloride spraying on the endotracheal tube cuff or oral mucosa for postoperative sore throat. Anesth Analg. 2010; 111: 887–891. pmid:20581162
- 18. Hung NK, Wu CT, Chan SM, Lu CH, Huang YS, Yeh CC, et al. Effect on postoperative sore throat of spraying the endotracheal tube cuff with benzydamine hydrochloride, 10% lidocaine, and 2% lidocaine. Anesth Analg. 2010; 111: 882–886. pmid:20304980
- 19. Borazan H, Kececioglu A, Okesli S, Otelcioglu S. Oral magnesium lozenge reduces postoperative sore throat: a randomized, prospective, placebo-controlled study. Anesthesiology. 2012; 117: 512–518. pmid:22797283
- 20. Seo JH, Kwon TK, Jeon Y, Hong DM, Kim HJ, Bahk JH. Comparison of techniques for double-lumen endobronchial intubation: 90 degrees or 180 degrees rotation during advancement through the glottis. Br J Anaesth. 2013; 111: 812–817. pmid:23794671
- 21. Seo JH, Cho CW, Hong DM, Jeon Y, Bahk JH. The effects of thermal softening of double-lumen endobronchial tubes on postoperative sore throat, hoarseness and vocal cord injuries: a prospective double-blind randomized trial. Br J Anaesth. 2016; 116: 282–288. pmid:26787799
- 22. Briscoe WH, Titmuss S, Tiberg F, Thomas RK, McGillivray DJ, Klein J. Boundary lubrication under water. Nature. 2006; 444: 191–194. pmid:17093447
- 23. Pothier DD, Raghava N, Monteiro P, Awad Z. A randomized controlled trial: is water better than a standard lubricant in nasendoscopy? Clin Otolaryngol. 2006; 31: 134–7. pmid:16620333
- 24. Panman MR, Bakker BH, den Uyl D, Kay ER, Leigh DA, Buma WJ, et al. Water lubricates hydrogen-bonded molecular machines. Nat Chem. 2013; 5: 929–934. pmid:24153370
- 25. Kim HJ, Kim DE. Water Lubrication of Stainless Steel using Reduced Graphene Oxide Coating. Sci Rep. 2015; 5: 17034. pmid:26593645
- 26. Kim E, Yang SM, Yoon SJ, Bahk JH, Seo JH. The effects of water lubrication of tracheal tubes on post-intubation airway complications: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2016; 17: 562. pmid:27887662
- 27. Martini CH, Boon M, Bevers RF, Aarts LP, Dahan A. Evaluation of surgical conditions during laparoscopic surgery in patients with moderate vs deep neuromuscular block. Br J Anaesth. 2014; 112: 498–505. pmid:24240315
- 28. Domino KB, Posner KL, Caplan RA, Cheney FW. Airway injury during anesthesia: a closed claims analysis. Anesthesiology. 1999; 91: 1703–1711. pmid:10598613
- 29. Yamanaka H, Hayashi Y, Watanabe Y, Uematu H, Mashimo T. Prolonged hoarseness and arytenoid cartilage dislocation after tracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth. 2009; 103: 452–455. pmid:19556269
- 30. Komasawa N, Komatsu M, Yamasaki H, Minami T. Lip, tooth, and pharyngeal injuries during tracheal intubation at a teaching hospital. Br J Anaesth. 2017; 119: 171. pmid:28974082
- 31. Kundra P, Kumar V, Srinivasan K, Gopalakrishnan S, Krishnappa S. Laryngoscopic techniques to assess vocal cord mobility following thyroid surgery. ANZ J Surg. 2010; 80: 817–821. pmid:20969690
- 32. Sunkaraneni VS, Jones SE. Topical anaesthetic or vasoconstrictor preparations for flexible fibre-optic nasal pharyngoscopy and laryngoscopy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011: Cd005606.
- 33. Seccia V, Dallan I, Massimetti G, Segnini G, Navari E, Fortunato S, et al. Patient-related and ENT-related predictive factors based on the pain experienced during flexible nasendoscopy. Laryngoscope. 2014; 124: 1648–1652. pmid:24272788
- 34. Casati A, Casaletti E. Sore throat and pharyngeal trauma after extratracheal airway placement: does the literature help practitioners? Anesth Analg. 1999; 89: 263. pmid:10389829
- 35. Bottcher A, Mencke T, Zitzmann A, Knecht R, Jowett N, Nöldge-Schomburg G, et al. Laryngeal injuries following endotracheal intubation in ENT surgery: predictive value of anatomical scores. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2014; 271: 345–352. pmid:23990031
- 36. Feldman C, Kassel M, Cantrell J, Kaka S, Morar R, Goolam Mahomed A, et al. The presence and sequence of endotracheal tube colonization in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. Eur Respir J. 1999; 13: 546–551. pmid:10232424
- 37. Pneumatikos IA, Dragoumanis CK, Bouros DE. Ventilator-associated pneumonia or endotracheal tube-associated pneumonia? An approach to the pathogenesis and preventive strategies emphasizing the importance of endotracheal tube. Anesthesiology. 2009; 110: 673–680. pmid:19212256
- 38. Gibbs K, Holzman IR. Endotracheal tube: friend or foe? Bacteria, the endotracheal tube, and the impact of colonization and infection. Semin Perinatol. 2012; 36: 454–461. pmid:23177805
- 39. Sottile FD, Marrie TJ, Prough DS, Hobgood CD, Gower DJ, Webb LX, et al. Nosocomial pulmonary infection: possible etiologic significance of bacterial adhesion to endotracheal tubes. Crit Care Med. 1986; 14: 265–270. pmid:3956213
- 40. Cairns S, Thomas JG, Hooper SJ, Wise MP, Frost PJ, Wilson MJ, et al. Molecular analysis of microbial communities in endotracheal tube biofilms. PLoS One. 2011; 6: e14759. pmid:21423727
- 41. Puyo CA, Peruzzi D, Earhart A, Roller E, Karanikolas M, Kollef MH, et al. Endotracheal tube-induced sore throat pain and inflammation is coupled to the release of mitochondrial DNA. Mol Pain. 2017; 13: 1–10.
