Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology

CORRESPONDENCE
Year
: 2011  |  Volume : 27  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 142-

A premature neonate required size 4.0 endotracheal tube


Gurpreet Singh 
 Department of anaesthesia, Columbia Asia Hospital, Patiala, India

Correspondence Address:
Gurpreet Singh
Department of anaesthesia, Columbia Asia Hospital, Patiala
India




How to cite this article:
Singh G. A premature neonate required size 4.0 endotracheal tube.J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2011;27:142-142


How to cite this URL:
Singh G. A premature neonate required size 4.0 endotracheal tube. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol [serial online] 2011 [cited 2020 Jul 3 ];27:142-142
Available from: http://www.joacp.org/text.asp?2011/27/1/142/76684


Full Text

Dear Sir,

A 2 day old premature (36 week) female neonate presented to our hospital with intestinal obstruction for which she was to undergo laparatomy. Based on standard formulas, we assumed that a size 2.5 or a 3.0 mm internal diameter endotracheal tube would be suitable for her. But upon intubation, we could hear a significant leak with both tubes and were unable to ventilate. We then tried a 3.5 mm tube but the same amount of leak persisted. Finally, we put in a size 4.0 endotracheal tube and noticed very acceptable leak and normal ventilatory pressures with it. We want to highlight the fact that in premature neonates, the elasticity of laryngeal structures permits intubation with tube sizes greater than that predicted by anatomical measurements. [1] Hence, endotracheal tube sizes greater than that predicted by measurements should be available in the theatre especially in premature babies. [2][Figure 1]{Figure 1}

References

1Fayoux P, Devisme L, Merrot O, Marciniak B Determination of endotracheal tube size in a perinatal population: an anatomical and experimental study. Anesthesiology. 2006 May;104(5):954-60.
2Ko YP, Cheng CR, Chen JC, Hsu YW, Jen RK, Hwang JJ, Wei TT A proper size of endotracheal tube for infant and young child--a retrospective study in Mackay Memorial Hospital. Acta Anaesthesiol Sin. 1995 Sep;33(3):165-72.