A comparison of CO2 laser ignition of the Xomed, plastic, and rubber endotracheal tubes.
The combustibility of Xomed LaserShield endotracheal tubes was compared to that of polyvinylchloride (PVC) and rubber endotracheal tubes at 15, 17, and 20 watts (W) of power from a CO2 laser. Oxygen, 5.0 L/min, flowed through the tubes during the investigation. The laser was aimed perpendicularly at the shaft of the endotracheal tube under study and actuated until an intraluminal fire occurred. The times to blow torch combustion of the PVC tubes were 1.7, 1.8, and 1.5 s at 15, 17, and 20 W, respectively. For the Xomed tube, the times to combustion were 85.9, 42.5, and 20.3 s at 15, 17, and 20 W, respectively. Intraluminal (blow torch) fires of the rubber endotracheal tubes occurred after 24.5, 25.4, and 21.9 s at 15, 17, and 20 W. The times to combustion of the PVC and Xomed tubes were significantly different at 15 and 17 W. The times to intraluminal combustion of the rubber tubes were significantly different from those of the Xomed tubes only at 15 W. We conclude that the Xomed tube does not offer consistently better resistance to laser-induced combustion than the PVC or rubber endotracheal tubes tested.
Sosis
M B
MB
Department of Anesthesiology, Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, Chicago, IL 60612.
Dillon
F X
FX
D005390:Fires; D007442:Intubation, Intratracheal / Q000295:instrumentation*; D053685:Laser Therapy / Q000009:adverse effects*; D011143:Polyvinyl Chloride; D012408:Rubber
D011143:Polyvinyl Chloride; D012408:Rubber