Endotracheal cuff-pressure monitoring is a critical component of patient care in the intensive care unit, ensuring the safety and efficacy of mechanical ventilation. Despite its importance, there remains a lack of standardized protocols regarding optimal pressure targets and documentation practices. This editorial examines the significance of endotracheal intracuff-pressure monitoring in enhancing patient outcomes, highlighting the challenges and potential solutions in clinical practice.

The cuff pressure of a tracheal tube may increase during robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery for prostatectomy (RALP), which requires pneumoperitoneum in a steep head-down position, but there have been no studies which confirmed this.
In study 1, we studied how frequently the cuff pressure significantly increased during anesthesia for the RALP. In study 2, we studied if the SmartCuff (Smiths Medical Japan, Tokyo) automatic cuff pressure controller would minimize the changes in the intracuff pressure. With approval of the study by the research ethics committee (approved number: 20115), we measured the cuff pressures in anesthetized patients undergoing RALP and in those undergoing gynecological laparotomy (as a reference cohort), with and without the use of the SmartCuff.
In 21 patients undergoing RALP, a clinically meaningful increase (5 cmH2O or greater) was observed in all the 21 patients (P = 0.00; 95% CI for difference: 86-100%), whereas in 23 patients undergoing gynecological laparotomy, a clinically meaningful decrease (5 cmH2O or greater) was observed in 21 of 23 patients (91%, P < 0.0001; 95% CI for difference: 72-99%). With the use of the SmartCuff, there was no significant increase in the incidence of a clinically meaningful change in the intracuff pressure in either cohort.
The cuff pressure of a tracheal tube would frequently increase markedly in patients undergoing RALP, whereas it would frequently decrease markedly in patients undergoing gynecological laparotomy. The SmartCuff may inhibit the changes in the cuff pressure during anesthesia.

UNASSIGNED: The objective of this prospective randomized blinded study was to assess the safety and efficacy of the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) Supreme as compared with the LMA Proseal.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 60 patients were randomised into two groups to either receive a Proseal LMA (PLMA) or Supreme LMA (SLMA) for airway management. The primary outcome was to measure oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) in both groups. The secondary outcomes were the measurement of insertion time, insertion success rate, fibreoptic grading, intracuff pressure, ease of ventilation, and airway pressure on standard ventilatory settings and postoperative complications.
UNASSIGNED: Intracuff pressure increase after 60 minutes of induction was significantly higher in the PLMA group (PLMA 97.43 ± 11.03 cm of H2O and SLMA 75.17 ± 8.95 cm of H2O). OLP was recorded after device insertion, after 30 min and after 60 min in each group and was found to be 28.71 ± 2.97, 30.93 ± 2.87, and 31.93 ± 2.72 cm of H2O in PLMA and 24.84 ± 2.08, 26.73 ± 2.26, and 27.95 ± 2.55 cm of H2O in SLMA group, respectively. The mean OLP with the SLMA was significantly (p=<.001) lower than PLMA. All the other parameters were comparable in both groups.
UNASSIGNED: PLMA is better than SLMA as airway device to ventilate at higher airway pressure in paralyzed adult patients. On the basis of our study, we recommend Proseal over Supreme LMA.

Oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) is considered a measure of successful placement, adequate performance and is a useful comparator between supraglottic airway devices (SADs). OLP measurement is based on the premise that the SAD is sited properly in the hypopharynx after blind placements, but the evidence suggests otherwise. Several limitations and controversies surround OLP. This editorial addresses the uses and pitfalls of OLP, the rationale for and methods of ascertaining OLP, the pros and cons of OLP measurement and newer modalities to improve its accuracy.

UNASSIGNED: During esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), general anesthesia (GA) may be provided using a laryngeal mask airway (LMA) with the endoscope inserted behind the cuff of the LMA into the esophagus. Passage of the endoscope may increase the intracuff of the LMA. We evaluated a newly designed LMA (LMA® Gastro™ Airway) which has an internal channel exiting from its distal end to facilitate EGD. The current study compared the change of LMA cuff pressure between this new LMA and a standard clinical LMA (Ambu® AuraOnce™) during EGD.
UNASSIGNED: Patients less than 21 years of age and weighing more than 30 kg were randomized to receive airway management with one of the two LMAs during EGD. After anesthetic induction and successful LMA placement, the intracuff pressure of the LMAs was continuously monitored during the procedure. The primary outcome was the change of intracuff pressure of the LMAs.
UNASSIGNED: The study cohort included 200 patients (mean age 13.6 years and weight 56.6 kg) who were randomized to the LMA® Gastro™ Airway (n=100) or the Ambu® AuraOnce™ LMA (n=100). Average intracuff pressures during the study period (before and after endoscope insertion) were not different between the two LMAs. Ease of the procedure was slightly improved with the LMA® Gastro™ Airway (p<0.001).
UNASSIGNED: The LMA® Gastro™ Airway blunted, but did not prevent an increase in intracuff pressure during EGD when compared to the Ambu® AuraOnce™ LMA. Throat soreness was generally low, and complications were infrequent in both groups. The ease of the procedure was slightly improved with the LMA® Gastro™ Airway compared to the Ambu® AuraOnce™ LMA.

BACKGROUND: The cuff of an endotracheal tube seals the airway to facilitate positive-pressure ventilation and reduce subglottic secretion aspiration. However, an increase or decrease in endotracheal tube intracuff pressure can lead to many morbidities.
OBJECTIVE: The main purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of different head and neck positions on endotracheal tube intracuff pressure during ear and head and neck surgeries.
METHODS: A total of 90 patients undergoing elective right ear (Group 1: n=30), left ear (Group 2: n=30) or head and neck (Group 3: n=30) surgery were involved in the study. A standardized general anesthetic was given and cuffed endotracheal tubes by the assistance of video laryngoscope were placed in all patients. The pilot balloon of each endotracheal tube was connected to the pressure transducer and standard invasive pressure monitoring was set to measure intracuff pressure values continuously. The first intracuff pressure value was adjusted to 18.4mmHg (25cm H2O) at supine and neutral neck position. The patients then were given appropriate head and neck positions before related-surgery started. These positions were left rotation, right rotation and extension by under-shoulder pillow with left/right rotation for Groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The intracuff pressures were measured and noted after each position, at 15th, 30th, 60th, 90th minutes and before the extubation. If intracuff pressure deviated from the targeted value of 20-30cm H2O at anytime, it was set to 25cm H2O again.
RESULTS: The intracuff pressure values were increased from 25 to 26.73 (25-28.61) cm H2O after left neck rotation (p=0.009) and from 25 to 27.20 (25.52-28.67) cm H2O after right neck rotation (p=0.012) in Groups 1 and 2, respectively. In Group 3, intracuff pressure values at the neutral position, after extension by under-shoulder pillow and left or right rotation were 25, 29.41 (27.02-36.94) and 34.55 (28.43-37.31) cm H2O, respectively. There were significant differences between the neutral position and extension by under-shoulder pillow (p<0.001), and also between neutral position and rotation after extension (p<0.001). However, there was no statistically significant increase of intracuff pressure between extension by under-shoulder pillow and neck rotation after extension positions (p=0.033).
CONCLUSIONS: Accessing the continuous intracuff pressure value measurements before and during ear and head and neck surgeries is beneficial to avoid possible adverse effects/complications of surgical position-related pressure changes.

Hyperinflation of laryngeal mask cuffs may carry the risk of airway complications. The manufacturer recommends inflating cuff until the intracuff pressure reaches 60 cmH2O, or inflate with the volume of air to not exceed the maximum recommended volume. We prospectively assessed the correlation of cuff inflating volumes and pressures, and the appropriated the cuff inflating volumes to generate an intracuff pressure of 60 cmH2O in the adult laryngeal masks from different manufacturers.
Two groups of 80 patients requiring laryngeal mask size 3 and 4 during general anesthesia were randomized into 4 subgroups for each size of the laryngeal mask: Soft Seal® (Portex®), AuraOnce™ (Ambu®), LMA-Classic™ (Teleflex®) and LMA-ProSeal™ (Teleflex®). After insertion, the cuff was inflated with 5-ml increments of air up to the maximum recommended volume. After each 5-ml intracuff pressure was measured, the volume of air that generated the intracuff pressure of 60 cmH2O was recorded.
Mean (SD) volume of air required to achieve the intracuff pressure of 60 cmH2O in Soft Seal®, AuraOnce™, LMA-Classic™, LMA-ProSeal™ laryngeal mask size 3 were 11.80(1.88), 9.20(1.88), 8.95(1.50) and 13.50(2.48) ml, respectively, and these volumes in laryngeal mask size 4 were 14.45(4.12), 12.55(1.85), 11.30(1.95) and 18.20(3.47) ml, respectively. The maximum recommended volume resulted in high intracuff pressures (> 60 cmH2O) in all laryngeal mask types and sizes studied.
Pressure-volume curves of adult laryngeal masks are all in sigmoidal shape. Cuff designs and materials can effect pressure and volume correlation. Approximately half of the maximum recommended volume is required to achieve the intracuff pressure of 60 cmH2O except LMA-ProSeal™ which required two-thirds of the maximum recommended volume.
Thai Clinical Trials Registry, TCTR20150602001, May 28, 2015.

OBJECTIVE: Various formulae have been suggested to calculate the appropriate sized endotracheal tube in children. The current study prospectively compares three commonly used formulae for selection of cuffed endotracheal tubes in children.
METHODS: Patients were randomized to one of three formulae (Duracher, Cole, or Khine) to determine the size of the cuffed endotracheal tube for endotracheal intubation. The fit of the tube was noted and intracuff pressure was measured using a manometer. The postoperative incidence of stridor, throat pain/soreness, and hoarseness was noted in the post-anesthesia care unit at 2, 4 and 24 h after the procedure.
RESULTS: The study cohort included 135 patients less than or equal to 8 years, equally divided into three groups based on age, weight, and gender. There was no difference in the intracuff pressure, the volume required to seal the airway, or the number of times in which the intracuff pressure was greater than or equal to 20 or 30 cm H2O among the three groups. Six tube changes were required in the Cole group while no tube changes were required in the Duracher group (p < 0.05). The postoperative incidence of adverse events (throat pain, hoarseness, and stridor) at 0-2 h, 2-4 h, and 24 h was higher in the Cole group when compared to the Duracher group.
CONCLUSIONS: When using an endotracheal tube with a polyurethane cuff, the Duracher formula provided the best estimate for choosing the correct size.

The aim of this study was to compare four inflation techniques on endotracheal tube cuff (ETC) pressure using a feline airway simulator.
Ten participants used four different endotracheal cuff inflation techniques to inflate the cuff of a low-pressure, high-volume endotracheal tube within a feline airway simulator. The simulator replicated an average-sized feline trachea, intubated with a 4.5 mm endotracheal tube, connected to a circle breathing system and pressure-controlled ventilation with oxygen and medical air. Participants inflated the ETC: by pilot balloon palpation (P); by instilling the minimum occlusive volume (MOV) required for loss of airway leaks during mechanical ventilation; until a passive release of pressure with use of a loss-of-resistance syringe (LOR); and with use of a syringe with a digital pressure reader (D) specifically designed for endotracheal cuff inflation. Intracuff pressure was measured by a manometer obscured to participants. The ideal pressure was considered to be between 20 and 30 cmH2O. Data were analysed by Shapiro-Wilk, Kruskal-Wallis and χ2 tests, as appropriate.
Participants were eight veterinarians and two veterinary nurses with additional training in anaesthesia. Measured median intracuff pressures for P, MOV, LOR and D, respectively, were 25 cmH2O (range 4-74 cmH2O), 41 cmH2O (range 4-70 cmH2O), 31 cmH2O (range 18-64 cmH2O) and 22 cmH2O (range 20-30 cmH2O). D performed significantly better (P <0.001) than all other techniques, with no difference between the other techniques.
Use of D for cuff inflation achieved optimal cuff pressures. There may be high operator-dependent variability in the cuff pressures achieved with the use of P, MOV or LOR inflation techniques. As such, a cuff manometer is recommended when using any of these techniques.

OBJECTIVE: We prospectively evaluated intracuff pressure (IP) during one-lung ventilation (OLV) to characterize potential risk associated with overinflation of the cuff used for OLV.
METHODS: Prospective observational study over a 2-year period, in infants and children undergoing thoracic surgery. The IPs of the tracheal and bronchial balloon were measured using a manometer and compared to a previously recommended threshold of 30 cmH2O. Data were compared by the device type used to achieve OLV.
METHODS: Freestanding tertiary-care pediatric hospital.
METHODS: Patients ≤18 years of age undergoing thoracic procedures requiring OLV.
METHODS: Measurement of IP.
RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled (age 5 months-18 years) with a median weight of 28 kg. Median tracheal and bronchial IPs were 32 cmH2O (range: 11, 90) and 44 cmH2O (range: 10, 100), respectively. The tracheal and bronchial IPs exceeded 30 cmH2O in 13 of 20 patients (65%) and 21 of 30 patients (70%), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: IP was high and in excess of recommended levels in most children undergoing OLV. Continuous monitoring of IP may be indicated during OLV to address the risks involved and ensure the prevention of complications related to high IP.
METHODS: Prospective comparative study.
METHODS: Level II.