Paediatric anaesthesia · 2025
Feasibility of Obtaining Pulse Oximetry Readings From the Oropharynx.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Syed Hassan, Villalobos Edison E, Kitio Sibelle Aurelie Yemele, Hall Brian, Bryant Jason, Tobias Joseph D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: As access to monitoring sites on the hands and feet may be limited due to surgical procedures, burns, trauma, or injuries, alternative sites for the measurement of pulse oximetry may be needed.
AIMS: The current study assesses the feasibility of obtaining pulse oximetry measurements from the oropharynx, using a pulse oximeter probe attached to a standard oral airway.
METHODS: Two cohorts were studied, each including 50 patients, with the oximeter facing toward the palate (cohort 1) or the tongue (cohort 2).
RESULTS: The oropharyngeal oximeter functioned effectively with an absolute difference from the extremity values of 4.2 ± 3.4 in cohort 1 and 2.5 ± 3.4 in cohort 2. The number of values that were 0%-2% within the extremity oximetry value was greater in cohort 2 (73.7% versus 35.6%). However, the fallout (number of times when the oropharyngeal oximeter did not record a value was slightly higher in cohort 2 (6.1% versus 1.7%)).
CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary data shows that oximetry values that are clinically in-line with extremity oximetry values can be obtained from the oropharynx. The accuracy appears to be greater with the emitter and sensor facing the tongue, although there was a higher percentage of missed values.
AIMS: The current study assesses the feasibility of obtaining pulse oximetry measurements from the oropharynx, using a pulse oximeter probe attached to a standard oral airway.
METHODS: Two cohorts were studied, each including 50 patients, with the oximeter facing toward the palate (cohort 1) or the tongue (cohort 2).
RESULTS: The oropharyngeal oximeter functioned effectively with an absolute difference from the extremity values of 4.2 ± 3.4 in cohort 1 and 2.5 ± 3.4 in cohort 2. The number of values that were 0%-2% within the extremity oximetry value was greater in cohort 2 (73.7% versus 35.6%). However, the fallout (number of times when the oropharyngeal oximeter did not record a value was slightly higher in cohort 2 (6.1% versus 1.7%)).
CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary data shows that oximetry values that are clinically in-line with extremity oximetry values can be obtained from the oropharynx. The accuracy appears to be greater with the emitter and sensor facing the tongue, although there was a higher percentage of missed values.