↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Cuffed versus uncuffed endotracheal tubes for general anaesthesia in children aged eight years and under

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
21 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 Mendeley
Title
Cuffed versus uncuffed endotracheal tubes for general anaesthesia in children aged eight years and under
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011954.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Flavia A De Orange, Rebeca GAC Andrade, Andrea Lemos, Paulo SGN Borges, José N Figueiroa, Pete G Kovatsis

Abstract

Since the introduction of endotracheal intubation in paediatrics, uncuffed endotracheal tubes (ETTs) have been the standard of care for children under eight years old, based on the presumption that complications, particularly postoperative stridor, are higher with cuffed ETTs. The major disadvantages of uncuffed ETTs cited for this shift in procedure include the difficulty in achieving tidal volumes due to leakage around an uncuffed ETT. To seal the airway adequately, uncuffed tubes may need to be exchanged for another tube with a larger diameter, which sometimes requires several attempts before the appropriate size is found. Uncuffed tubes also allow waste anaesthetic gases to escape, contributing significantly to operating room contamination and rendering the anaesthetic procedure more expensive. Our review summarizes the available data, to provide a current perspective on the use of cuffed versus uncuffed endotracheal tubes in children of eight years old or less. To assess the risks and benefits of cuffed versus uncuffed endotracheal tubes during general anaesthesia in children up to eight years old. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS and Google Scholar databases from their inception until March 2017. We also searched databases of ongoing trials, and checked references and citations. We imposed no restriction by language. We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials in which the effects of using cuffed and uncuffed tubes were investigated in children up to eight years old undergoing general anaesthesia. We excluded studies conducted solely in newborn babies. We applied standard methodological procedures, as defined in the Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR). We included three trials (2804 children), comparing cuffed with uncuffed ETTs. We rated the risks of bias in all three trials as high. Outcome data were limited. The largest trial was supported by Microcuff GmbH, who provided the cuffed tubes used. The other two trials were small, and should be interpreted with caution. Based on the GRADE approach, we rated the quality of evidence as low to very low.Two trials comparing cuffed versus uncuffed ETTs found no difference between the groups for postextubation stridor (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.33; 2734 children; quality of evidence very low). However, those two trials demonstrated a statistically significantly lower rate of endotracheal tube exchange in the cuffed ETT group (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.10; 2734 children; quality of evidence very low).One trial with 70 participants found that costs per case were lower in the cuffed ETT group (mean difference (MD) EUR 19.0 lower; 95% CI 24.23 to 13.77 lower; quality of evidence low), since the higher cost of the cuffed tubes may be offset by the savings made with anaesthetic gases.No clear evidence emerged to suggest any difference between cuffed and uncuffed tubes for outcomes such as the need to treat postextubation stridor with tracheal re-intubation (RR 1.85, 95% CI 0.17 to 19.76; 115 children; 2 trials; quality of evidence very low), epinephrine (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.28; 115 children; 2 trials; quality of evidence very low) or corticosteroid (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.49; 102 children; 1 trial; quality of evidence very low), or need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission to treat postextubation stridor (RR 2.77, 95% CI 0.30 to 25.78; 102 children; 1 trial; quality of evidence very low).None of the trials included in this review evaluated the ability to deliver appropriate tidal volume. Implications for practiceWe are unable to draw definitive conclusions about the comparative effects of cuffed or non-cuffed endotracheal tubes in children undergoing general anaesthesia. Our confidence is limited by risks of bias, imprecision and indirectness. The lower requirement for exchange of tubes with cuffed ETTs was very low-quality evidence, and the requirement for less medical gas used and consequent lower cost was low-quality evidence. In some cases, tracheal re-intubation is required to guarantee an open airway when adequate oxygenation is difficult after removal of the tube, for a variety of reasons including stridor, muscle weakness or obstruction. No data were available to permit evaluation of whether appropriate tidal volumes were delivered. Implications for researchLarge randomized controlled trials of high methodological quality should be conducted to help clarify the risks and benefits of cuffed ETTs for children. Such trials should investigate the capacity to deliver appropriate tidal volume. Future trials should also address cost effectiveness and respiratory complications. Such studies should correlate the age of the child with the duration of intubation, and with possible complications. Studies should also be conducted in newborn babies. Future research should be conducted to compare the effects of the different types or brands of cuffed tubes used worldwide. Finally, trials should be designed to perform more accurate assessments and to diagnose the complications encountered with cuffed compared to uncuffed ETTs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 143 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 15%
Researcher 22 15%
Student > Bachelor 17 12%
Other 11 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 6%
Other 25 17%
Unknown 38 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 15%
Social Sciences 9 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 43 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 July 2021.
All research outputs
#2,018,758
of 18,666,194 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,592
of 11,841 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,233
of 426,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#121
of 228 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,666,194 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,841 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 426,985 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 228 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.