Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 493–495 | Cite as

Predicting the appropriate size of the uncuffed nasotracheal tube for pediatric patients: a retrospective study

  • Masanori TsukamotoEmail author
  • Hitoshi Yamanaka
  • Takeshi Yokoyama
Short Communication



The selection of an appropriate size of tracheal tube is important for airway management. For nasotracheal intubation, passing the nasal cavity should be taken into account for the selection of tube size. The aim of this study was to investigate the selection of appropriate size of nasotracheal tube in pediatric patients retrospectively.

Materials and methods

The 1–12-year patients underwent dental procedures under general anesthesia intubated nasotracheally. The correlation between height, age, weight, the tracheal diameters at C6, C7, Th2 on the chest X-ray, and actually performed tube sizes were calculated. In addition, we compared the relationships between the predicted tube size and actually the intubated tube size.


The tube sizes intubated actually were between 4.0 and 6.0-mm ID. The formula by height could be most suitable for tube size. The correspondence rates for the tube with 4.5- and 5.0-mm ID were 78% and 53%. When they were predicted as 5.5- or 6.0-mm ID, 0.5 mm smaller size tube were intubated actually; 56% and 70%. When the predicted tube size was 4.0-mm ID, 0.5 mm larger size tube was intubated actually; 66%.


The formula by height could be most suitable for the selection of size for pediatric nasotracheal intubation. When the predicted tube size was 5.5 or 6.0-mm ID, 0.5 mm smaller size should be chosen at first. In the case of 4.0-mm ID, 0.5 mm larger size should be chosen for first trial.

Clinical relevance

The present data indicate that the selection of nasotracheal tube using the formula by height might be useful.


General anesthesia Nasotracheal tube Pediatric patients Tube size 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.


  1. 1.
    Eipe N, Barrowman N, Writer H, Doherty D (2009) A weight-based formula for tracheal tube size in children. Paediatr Anaesth 19(4):343–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shih MH, Chung CY, Su BC, Hung CT, Wong SY, Wong TK (2008) Accuracy of a new body length-based formula for predicting tracheal tube size in Chinese children. Chang Gung Med J 31(3):276–280Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    King BR, Baker MD, Braitman LE, Seidl-Friedman J, Schreiner MS (1993) Endotracheal tube selection in children: a comparison of four methods. Ann Emerg Med 22(3):530–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Park HP, Hwang JW, Lee JH, Nahm FS, Park SH, Oh AY, Jeon YT, Lim YJ (2013) Predicting the appropriate uncuffed endotracheal tube size for children: a radiograph-based formula versus two age-based formulas. J Clin Anesth 25(5):384–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Takita K, Morimoto Y, Okamura A, Kemmotsu O (2001) Do age-based formulae predict the appropriate endotracheal tube sizes in Japanese children? J Anesth 15(3):145–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shott SR (2000) Down syndrome: analysis of airway size and a guide for appropriate intubation. Laryngoscope 110(4):585–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van den Berg AA, Mphanza T (1997) Choice of tracheal tube size for children: finger size or age-related formula? Anaesthesia 52(7):701–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eck JB, De Lisle Dear G, Phillips-Bute BG, Ginsberg B (2002) Prediction of tracheal tube size in children using multiple variables. Paediatr Anaesth 12(6):495–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Patel S, Lalwani K, Koh J, Wu L, Fu R (2014) Temporal variation of the leak pressure of uncuffed endotracheal tubes following pediatric intubation: an observational study. J Anesth 28(3):368–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hunyady AI, Jonmarker C (2015) Are preformed endotracheal tubes appropriately designed for pediatric patients? Paediatr Anaesth 25(9):929–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Prasanna D, Bhat S (2014) Nasotracheal intubation: an overview. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 13(4):366–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    El-Orbany M, Woehlck H, Salem MR (2011) Head and neck position for direct laryngoscopy. Anesth Analg 113(1):103–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shi F, Xiao Y, Xiong W, Zhou Q, Huang X (2016) Cuffed versus uncuffed endotracheal tubes in children: a meta-analysis. J Anesth 30(1):3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Coordes A, Rademacher G, Knopke S, Todt I, Ernst A, Estel B, Seidl RO (2011) Selection and placement of oral ventilation tubes based on tracheal morphometry. Laryngoscope 121(6):1225–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Khine HH, Corddry DH, Kettrick RG, Martin TM, McCloskey JJ, Rose JB, Theroux MC, Zagnoev M (1997) Comparison of cuffed and uncuffed endotracheal tubes in young children during general anesthesia. Anesthesiology 86(3):627–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shibasaki M, Nakajima Y, Ishii S, Shimizu F, Shime N, Sessler DI (2010) Prediction of pediatric endotracheal tube size by ultrasonography. Anesthesiology 113(4):819–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Masanori Tsukamoto
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hitoshi Yamanaka
    • 2
  • Takeshi Yokoyama
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Dental AnesthesiologyKyushu University HospitalFukuokaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Dental Anesthesiology, Faculty of Dental ScienceKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations