HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lish, J. Articles by Payton, M. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lish, J. Articles by Payton, M. E.

Evaluation of Two Methods of Endotracheal Tube Selection in Dogs

From the Center for Veterinary Health Sciences (Lish) and the Department of Statistics (Payton), College of Arts and Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078 and the Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences (Ko), School of Veterinary Medicine, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47908.

Address all correspondence to Dr. Ko.

This study evaluated two methods of endotracheal tube selection using 28 fresh canine carcasses of various ages, weights, and genders. The two selection methods were 1) nasal septal width pairing with outer diameter of an endotracheal tube, and 2) digital palpation of the tracheal outer diameter to determine the endotracheal tube size. All dogs were dolichocephalic breeds. Results of this study showed that the canine nasal septal width method of endotracheal tube selection was correlated with the size of the tracheal internal (r=0.72) and outer (r=0.73) diameters. However, evidence shows that the digital palpation method is slightly more effective than the nasal width method in selecting the best-fitting endotracheal tube. The percentage of the best-fit tube selection for the nasal septal width method was 21%, while the digital palpation method was 46%. With these two methods, selecting an endotracheal tube that is too small is possible, especially when the tube internal diameter is 7 mm.