SummaryCuffed tracheal tubes are increasingly used in paediatric anaesthetic practice. This study compared tidal volume and leakage around cuffed and uncuffed tracheal tubes in children who required standardised mechanical ventilation of their lungs in the operating theatre. Children (0-16 years) undergoing elective surgery requiring tracheal intubation were randomly assigned to receive either a cuffed or an uncuffed tracheal tube. Assessments were made at five different time-points: during volume-controlled ventilation 6 ml.kg À1, PEEP 5 cmH 2 O and during pressurecontrolled ventilation 10 cmH 2 O / PEEP 5 cmH 2 O. The pressure-controlled ventilation measurement time-points were: just before a standardised recruitment manoeuvre; just after recruitment manoeuvre; 10 min; and 30 min after the recruitment manoeuvre. Problems and complications were recorded. During volume-controlled ventilation, leakage was significantly less with cuffed tracheal tubes than with uncuffed tracheal tubes; in ml.kg , respectively, p < 0.001. With pressure-controlled ventilation, leakage was less with cuffed tracheal tubes and stayed unchanged over a 30-min period, whereas with uncuffed tracheal tubes, leakage was higher and increased further over the 30-min period. Tidal volumes were higher in the cuffed group and increased over time, but in the uncuffed group were lower and decreased over time. Both groups showed an increase in tidal volumes following recruitment manoeuvres. There were more short-term complications with uncuffed tracheal tubes, but no major complications were recorded in either group at long-term follow-up. With standardised ventilator settings, cuffed tracheal tubes produced better ventilation characteristics compared with uncuffed tracheal tubes during general anaesthesia for routine elective surgery.

Highlights Is Intraoperative neurophysiology monitoring (INM) needed in scoliosis surgery? Our experience with INM in 61 surgeries in 56 children shows that it is useful. Propose alert criteria for Transcranial electrical motor evoked potentials in INM. We recommend the use of total intravenous anaesthesia for INM.

ObjectiveTo study effectiveness and safety of cuffed versus uncuffed endotracheal tubes (ETTs) in small infants in the intensive care unit (ICU).DesignPilot RCT.SettingNeonatal and paediatric ICUs of children’s hospital in Western Australia.ParticipantsSeventy-six infants ≥35 weeks gestation and infants <3 months of age, ≥3 kg.InterventionsPatients randomly assigned to Microcuff cuffed or Portex uncuffed ETT.Main outcomes measuresPrimary outcome was achievement of optimal ETT leak in target range (10%–20%). Secondary outcomes included: reintubations, ventilatory parameters, ventilatory complications, postextubation complications and long-term follow-up.ResultsSuccess rate (achievement of mean leak in the range 10%–20%) was 13/42 (30.9%) in the cuffed ETT group and 6/34 (17.6%) in uncuffed ETT group (OR=2.09; 95% CI (0.71 to 6.08); p=0.28). Mean percentage time within target leak range in cuffed ETT group 28% (IQR: 9–42) versus 15% (IQR: 0–28) in uncuffed ETT group (p=0.01). There were less reintubations to optimise size in cuffed ETT group 0/40 versus 10/36 (p<0.001). No differences were found in gaseous exchange, ventilator parameters or postextubation complications. There were fewer episodes of atelectasis in cuffed ETT group 0/42 versus 4/34 (p=0.03). No patient had been diagnosed with subglottic stenosis at long-term follow-up.ConclusionsThere was no difference in the primary outcome, though percentage time spent in optimal leak range was significantly higher in cuffed ETT group. Cuffed ETTs reduced reintubations to optimise ETT size and episodes of atelectasis. Cuffed ETTs may be a feasible alternative to uncuffed ETTs in this group of patients.Trial registration numberACTRN12615000081516.

No abstract

We conducted a prospective observational study of sevoflurane use over a four-week period at our tertiary referral children's hospital. Sevoflurane vaporisers were weighed before and after all general anaesthesia sessions and anaesthesia time intervals recorded. Midway through the audit, the initial findings were presented to the department with a brief reminder of ways to reduce sevoflurane use. These included recommendations for fresh gas flows and use of alternative agents during maintenance. Sevoflurane use then continued to be audited over a further two-week period. Anaesthesia in induction rooms accounted for 60% of total sevoflurane use but involved only 15% of total general anaesthetic time. Thus sevoflurane was used eight times faster in the induction rooms when compared to operating theatres. There was a 53% reduction in the rate of use of sevoflurane after the educational intervention, with an 87% reduction in in-theatre use and a 31% reduction in induction room use. This represents a potential saving of $108,120 per annum in our institution. Workloads before and after the educational intervention were comparable. A more complete cost benefit analysis of this initiative would include the costs of alternative agents and any clinical disadvantages incurred and would be seen in the context of the overall health budget. This was beyond the scope of this project. Clinicians can be relatively complacent about financial accountability. In this study, a simple educational reminder halved sevoflurane use in the short term. This study suggests that specific reminders or recommendations about anaesthetic technique in the induction rooms may be indicated.