Prediction of endotracheal tube size in the pediatric age group by ultrasound: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Anatomical differences in the airway in pediatric patients, compared to adults pose many challenges during endotracheal intubation, such as selecting the proper sized endotracheal tube (ETT) during intubation. Our primary objective was to assess how accurate is ultrasound (US) co-relation in comparison to standard age-based formulas in pediatric patients. Meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO 2020, CRD42020220041. Online literature available in PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase, Goggle scholar was searched from year 2000 till November 30, 2020, using relevant Mesh terms, ('airway US' OR (('airway'/exp OR airway) AND ('US'/exp OR US))) AND ('endotracheal intubation'/exp OR 'endotracheal intubation') AND ('pediatric'/exp OR pediatric)” to Predict endotracheal tube size/placement in pediatric age (neonate till 18 years) by the US. Bibliographic cross-references of selected publications were further manually screened. The full texts of each article were studied, once the abstract was found appropriate independently by two reviewers. A total of 48 papers published between 2010 and 2020 were identified as relevant and read in detail. Average numbers of patients were 86 and total numbers of patients were 1978. Most of the studies included pediatric patients posted for elective surgeries under general anesthesia and excluded emergency procedures, known laryngeal or tracheal pathology, high-risk patients, recent upper respiratory tract infections or allergy to ultrasound gel. A total of 18 independent correlations were analyzed. Final combined r value calculated from all the included articles was 0.824 (95% CI 0.677, 0.908) with a P < 0.00001 {strong co-relation (r < 0.80)}. Q statistic of 756.484, and I2 statistics of 97.53% showed a large degree of heterogeneity in the effect size across the studies. Use of US for upper airway in pediatric patients is an effective modality and can effectively predict endotracheal tube size estimations in comparison to standard age-based or height-based formulae in the pediatric age group. US is a non-invasive, cost-effective, portable, and reproducible technique as compared to CT and MRI. It also takes less time with increasing expertise and experience. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Bhavna Gupta [verfasserIn] Pallavi Ahluwalia [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2022

Schlagwörter:	airway us airway usg cricoid cartilage diameter cuffed endotracheal tube endotracheal intubation pediatric point of care us subglottic diameter tracheal tube positioning traditional formulas uncuffed endotracheal tube us assessment of airway us imaging

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology - Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2006, 38(2022), 3, Seite 371-383
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:38 ; year:2022 ; number:3 ; pages:371-383

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.4103/joacp.JOACP_650_20

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ083526315

Internformat


LEADER	01000naa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ083526315
003	DE-627
005	20230311021624.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230311s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.4103/joacp.JOACP_650_20 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ083526315
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJfdfd7135fadb405890f5043be3d7d13e
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a RD78.3-87.3
050		0	\|a RS1-441
100	0		\|a Bhavna Gupta \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Prediction of endotracheal tube size in the pediatric age group by ultrasound: A systematic review and meta-analysis
264		1	\|c 2022
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Anatomical differences in the airway in pediatric patients, compared to adults pose many challenges during endotracheal intubation, such as selecting the proper sized endotracheal tube (ETT) during intubation. Our primary objective was to assess how accurate is ultrasound (US) co-relation in comparison to standard age-based formulas in pediatric patients. Meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO 2020, CRD42020220041. Online literature available in PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase, Goggle scholar was searched from year 2000 till November 30, 2020, using relevant Mesh terms, ('airway US' OR (('airway'/exp OR airway) AND ('US'/exp OR US))) AND ('endotracheal intubation'/exp OR 'endotracheal intubation') AND ('pediatric'/exp OR pediatric)” to Predict endotracheal tube size/placement in pediatric age (neonate till 18 years) by the US. Bibliographic cross-references of selected publications were further manually screened. The full texts of each article were studied, once the abstract was found appropriate independently by two reviewers. A total of 48 papers published between 2010 and 2020 were identified as relevant and read in detail. Average numbers of patients were 86 and total numbers of patients were 1978. Most of the studies included pediatric patients posted for elective surgeries under general anesthesia and excluded emergency procedures, known laryngeal or tracheal pathology, high-risk patients, recent upper respiratory tract infections or allergy to ultrasound gel. A total of 18 independent correlations were analyzed. Final combined r value calculated from all the included articles was 0.824 (95% CI 0.677, 0.908) with a P < 0.00001 {strong co-relation (r < 0.80)}. Q statistic of 756.484, and I2 statistics of 97.53% showed a large degree of heterogeneity in the effect size across the studies. Use of US for upper airway in pediatric patients is an effective modality and can effectively predict endotracheal tube size estimations in comparison to standard age-based or height-based formulae in the pediatric age group. US is a non-invasive, cost-effective, portable, and reproducible technique as compared to CT and MRI. It also takes less time with increasing expertise and experience.
650		4	\|a airway us
650		4	\|a airway usg
650		4	\|a cricoid cartilage diameter
650		4	\|a cuffed endotracheal tube
650		4	\|a endotracheal intubation
650		4	\|a pediatric
650		4	\|a point of care us
650		4	\|a subglottic diameter
650		4	\|a tracheal tube positioning
650		4	\|a traditional formulas
650		4	\|a uncuffed endotracheal tube
650		4	\|a us assessment of airway
650		4	\|a us imaging
653		0	\|a Anesthesiology
653		0	\|a Pharmacy and materia medica
700	0		\|a Pallavi Ahluwalia \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology \|d Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2006 \|g 38(2022), 3, Seite 371-383 \|w (DE-627)518957225 \|w (DE-600)2253976-1 \|x 22312730 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:38 \|g year:2022 \|g number:3 \|g pages:371-383
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.4103/joacp.JOACP_650_20 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/fdfd7135fadb405890f5043be3d7d13e \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u http://www.joacp.org/article.asp?issn=0970-9185;year=2022;volume=38;issue=3;spage=371;epage=383;aulast=Gupta \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/0970-9185 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2011
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 38 \|j 2022 \|e 3 \|h 371-383

Indexfelder

author_variant	b g bg p a pa
matchkey_str	article:22312730:2022----::rdcinfnorcelueienhpdarcggopylrsudsse
hierarchy_sort_str	2022
callnumber-subject-code	RD
publishDate	2022
allfields	10.4103/joacp.JOACP_650_20 doi (DE-627)DOAJ083526315 (DE-599)DOAJfdfd7135fadb405890f5043be3d7d13e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RD78.3-87.3 RS1-441 Bhavna Gupta verfasserin aut Prediction of endotracheal tube size in the pediatric age group by ultrasound: A systematic review and meta-analysis 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Anatomical differences in the airway in pediatric patients, compared to adults pose many challenges during endotracheal intubation, such as selecting the proper sized endotracheal tube (ETT) during intubation. Our primary objective was to assess how accurate is ultrasound (US) co-relation in comparison to standard age-based formulas in pediatric patients. Meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO 2020, CRD42020220041. Online literature available in PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase, Goggle scholar was searched from year 2000 till November 30, 2020, using relevant Mesh terms, ('airway US' OR (('airway'/exp OR airway) AND ('US'/exp OR US))) AND ('endotracheal intubation'/exp OR 'endotracheal intubation') AND ('pediatric'/exp OR pediatric)” to Predict endotracheal tube size/placement in pediatric age (neonate till 18 years) by the US. Bibliographic cross-references of selected publications were further manually screened. The full texts of each article were studied, once the abstract was found appropriate independently by two reviewers. A total of 48 papers published between 2010 and 2020 were identified as relevant and read in detail. Average numbers of patients were 86 and total numbers of patients were 1978. Most of the studies included pediatric patients posted for elective surgeries under general anesthesia and excluded emergency procedures, known laryngeal or tracheal pathology, high-risk patients, recent upper respiratory tract infections or allergy to ultrasound gel. A total of 18 independent correlations were analyzed. Final combined r value calculated from all the included articles was 0.824 (95% CI 0.677, 0.908) with a P < 0.00001 {strong co-relation (r < 0.80)}. Q statistic of 756.484, and I2 statistics of 97.53% showed a large degree of heterogeneity in the effect size across the studies. Use of US for upper airway in pediatric patients is an effective modality and can effectively predict endotracheal tube size estimations in comparison to standard age-based or height-based formulae in the pediatric age group. US is a non-invasive, cost-effective, portable, and reproducible technique as compared to CT and MRI. It also takes less time with increasing expertise and experience. airway us airway usg cricoid cartilage diameter cuffed endotracheal tube endotracheal intubation pediatric point of care us subglottic diameter tracheal tube positioning traditional formulas uncuffed endotracheal tube us assessment of airway us imaging Anesthesiology Pharmacy and materia medica Pallavi Ahluwalia verfasserin aut In Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2006 38(2022), 3, Seite 371-383 (DE-627)518957225 (DE-600)2253976-1 22312730 nnns volume:38 year:2022 number:3 pages:371-383 https://doi.org/10.4103/joacp.JOACP_650_20 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/fdfd7135fadb405890f5043be3d7d13e kostenfrei http://www.joacp.org/article.asp?issn=0970-9185;year=2022;volume=38;issue=3;spage=371;epage=383;aulast=Gupta kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0970-9185 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 38 2022 3 371-383
spelling	10.4103/joacp.JOACP_650_20 doi (DE-627)DOAJ083526315 (DE-599)DOAJfdfd7135fadb405890f5043be3d7d13e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RD78.3-87.3 RS1-441 Bhavna Gupta verfasserin aut Prediction of endotracheal tube size in the pediatric age group by ultrasound: A systematic review and meta-analysis 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Anatomical differences in the airway in pediatric patients, compared to adults pose many challenges during endotracheal intubation, such as selecting the proper sized endotracheal tube (ETT) during intubation. Our primary objective was to assess how accurate is ultrasound (US) co-relation in comparison to standard age-based formulas in pediatric patients. Meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO 2020, CRD42020220041. Online literature available in PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase, Goggle scholar was searched from year 2000 till November 30, 2020, using relevant Mesh terms, ('airway US' OR (('airway'/exp OR airway) AND ('US'/exp OR US))) AND ('endotracheal intubation'/exp OR 'endotracheal intubation') AND ('pediatric'/exp OR pediatric)” to Predict endotracheal tube size/placement in pediatric age (neonate till 18 years) by the US. Bibliographic cross-references of selected publications were further manually screened. The full texts of each article were studied, once the abstract was found appropriate independently by two reviewers. A total of 48 papers published between 2010 and 2020 were identified as relevant and read in detail. Average numbers of patients were 86 and total numbers of patients were 1978. Most of the studies included pediatric patients posted for elective surgeries under general anesthesia and excluded emergency procedures, known laryngeal or tracheal pathology, high-risk patients, recent upper respiratory tract infections or allergy to ultrasound gel. A total of 18 independent correlations were analyzed. Final combined r value calculated from all the included articles was 0.824 (95% CI 0.677, 0.908) with a P < 0.00001 {strong co-relation (r < 0.80)}. Q statistic of 756.484, and I2 statistics of 97.53% showed a large degree of heterogeneity in the effect size across the studies. Use of US for upper airway in pediatric patients is an effective modality and can effectively predict endotracheal tube size estimations in comparison to standard age-based or height-based formulae in the pediatric age group. US is a non-invasive, cost-effective, portable, and reproducible technique as compared to CT and MRI. It also takes less time with increasing expertise and experience. airway us airway usg cricoid cartilage diameter cuffed endotracheal tube endotracheal intubation pediatric point of care us subglottic diameter tracheal tube positioning traditional formulas uncuffed endotracheal tube us assessment of airway us imaging Anesthesiology Pharmacy and materia medica Pallavi Ahluwalia verfasserin aut In Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2006 38(2022), 3, Seite 371-383 (DE-627)518957225 (DE-600)2253976-1 22312730 nnns volume:38 year:2022 number:3 pages:371-383 https://doi.org/10.4103/joacp.JOACP_650_20 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/fdfd7135fadb405890f5043be3d7d13e kostenfrei http://www.joacp.org/article.asp?issn=0970-9185;year=2022;volume=38;issue=3;spage=371;epage=383;aulast=Gupta kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0970-9185 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 38 2022 3 371-383
allfields_unstemmed	10.4103/joacp.JOACP_650_20 doi (DE-627)DOAJ083526315 (DE-599)DOAJfdfd7135fadb405890f5043be3d7d13e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RD78.3-87.3 RS1-441 Bhavna Gupta verfasserin aut Prediction of endotracheal tube size in the pediatric age group by ultrasound: A systematic review and meta-analysis 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Anatomical differences in the airway in pediatric patients, compared to adults pose many challenges during endotracheal intubation, such as selecting the proper sized endotracheal tube (ETT) during intubation. Our primary objective was to assess how accurate is ultrasound (US) co-relation in comparison to standard age-based formulas in pediatric patients. Meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO 2020, CRD42020220041. Online literature available in PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase, Goggle scholar was searched from year 2000 till November 30, 2020, using relevant Mesh terms, ('airway US' OR (('airway'/exp OR airway) AND ('US'/exp OR US))) AND ('endotracheal intubation'/exp OR 'endotracheal intubation') AND ('pediatric'/exp OR pediatric)” to Predict endotracheal tube size/placement in pediatric age (neonate till 18 years) by the US. Bibliographic cross-references of selected publications were further manually screened. The full texts of each article were studied, once the abstract was found appropriate independently by two reviewers. A total of 48 papers published between 2010 and 2020 were identified as relevant and read in detail. Average numbers of patients were 86 and total numbers of patients were 1978. Most of the studies included pediatric patients posted for elective surgeries under general anesthesia and excluded emergency procedures, known laryngeal or tracheal pathology, high-risk patients, recent upper respiratory tract infections or allergy to ultrasound gel. A total of 18 independent correlations were analyzed. Final combined r value calculated from all the included articles was 0.824 (95% CI 0.677, 0.908) with a P < 0.00001 {strong co-relation (r < 0.80)}. Q statistic of 756.484, and I2 statistics of 97.53% showed a large degree of heterogeneity in the effect size across the studies. Use of US for upper airway in pediatric patients is an effective modality and can effectively predict endotracheal tube size estimations in comparison to standard age-based or height-based formulae in the pediatric age group. US is a non-invasive, cost-effective, portable, and reproducible technique as compared to CT and MRI. It also takes less time with increasing expertise and experience. airway us airway usg cricoid cartilage diameter cuffed endotracheal tube endotracheal intubation pediatric point of care us subglottic diameter tracheal tube positioning traditional formulas uncuffed endotracheal tube us assessment of airway us imaging Anesthesiology Pharmacy and materia medica Pallavi Ahluwalia verfasserin aut In Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2006 38(2022), 3, Seite 371-383 (DE-627)518957225 (DE-600)2253976-1 22312730 nnns volume:38 year:2022 number:3 pages:371-383 https://doi.org/10.4103/joacp.JOACP_650_20 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/fdfd7135fadb405890f5043be3d7d13e kostenfrei http://www.joacp.org/article.asp?issn=0970-9185;year=2022;volume=38;issue=3;spage=371;epage=383;aulast=Gupta kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0970-9185 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 38 2022 3 371-383
allfieldsGer	10.4103/joacp.JOACP_650_20 doi (DE-627)DOAJ083526315 (DE-599)DOAJfdfd7135fadb405890f5043be3d7d13e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RD78.3-87.3 RS1-441 Bhavna Gupta verfasserin aut Prediction of endotracheal tube size in the pediatric age group by ultrasound: A systematic review and meta-analysis 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Anatomical differences in the airway in pediatric patients, compared to adults pose many challenges during endotracheal intubation, such as selecting the proper sized endotracheal tube (ETT) during intubation. Our primary objective was to assess how accurate is ultrasound (US) co-relation in comparison to standard age-based formulas in pediatric patients. Meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO 2020, CRD42020220041. Online literature available in PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase, Goggle scholar was searched from year 2000 till November 30, 2020, using relevant Mesh terms, ('airway US' OR (('airway'/exp OR airway) AND ('US'/exp OR US))) AND ('endotracheal intubation'/exp OR 'endotracheal intubation') AND ('pediatric'/exp OR pediatric)” to Predict endotracheal tube size/placement in pediatric age (neonate till 18 years) by the US. Bibliographic cross-references of selected publications were further manually screened. The full texts of each article were studied, once the abstract was found appropriate independently by two reviewers. A total of 48 papers published between 2010 and 2020 were identified as relevant and read in detail. Average numbers of patients were 86 and total numbers of patients were 1978. Most of the studies included pediatric patients posted for elective surgeries under general anesthesia and excluded emergency procedures, known laryngeal or tracheal pathology, high-risk patients, recent upper respiratory tract infections or allergy to ultrasound gel. A total of 18 independent correlations were analyzed. Final combined r value calculated from all the included articles was 0.824 (95% CI 0.677, 0.908) with a P < 0.00001 {strong co-relation (r < 0.80)}. Q statistic of 756.484, and I2 statistics of 97.53% showed a large degree of heterogeneity in the effect size across the studies. Use of US for upper airway in pediatric patients is an effective modality and can effectively predict endotracheal tube size estimations in comparison to standard age-based or height-based formulae in the pediatric age group. US is a non-invasive, cost-effective, portable, and reproducible technique as compared to CT and MRI. It also takes less time with increasing expertise and experience. airway us airway usg cricoid cartilage diameter cuffed endotracheal tube endotracheal intubation pediatric point of care us subglottic diameter tracheal tube positioning traditional formulas uncuffed endotracheal tube us assessment of airway us imaging Anesthesiology Pharmacy and materia medica Pallavi Ahluwalia verfasserin aut In Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2006 38(2022), 3, Seite 371-383 (DE-627)518957225 (DE-600)2253976-1 22312730 nnns volume:38 year:2022 number:3 pages:371-383 https://doi.org/10.4103/joacp.JOACP_650_20 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/fdfd7135fadb405890f5043be3d7d13e kostenfrei http://www.joacp.org/article.asp?issn=0970-9185;year=2022;volume=38;issue=3;spage=371;epage=383;aulast=Gupta kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0970-9185 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 38 2022 3 371-383
allfieldsSound	10.4103/joacp.JOACP_650_20 doi (DE-627)DOAJ083526315 (DE-599)DOAJfdfd7135fadb405890f5043be3d7d13e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RD78.3-87.3 RS1-441 Bhavna Gupta verfasserin aut Prediction of endotracheal tube size in the pediatric age group by ultrasound: A systematic review and meta-analysis 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Anatomical differences in the airway in pediatric patients, compared to adults pose many challenges during endotracheal intubation, such as selecting the proper sized endotracheal tube (ETT) during intubation. Our primary objective was to assess how accurate is ultrasound (US) co-relation in comparison to standard age-based formulas in pediatric patients. Meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO 2020, CRD42020220041. Online literature available in PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase, Goggle scholar was searched from year 2000 till November 30, 2020, using relevant Mesh terms, ('airway US' OR (('airway'/exp OR airway) AND ('US'/exp OR US))) AND ('endotracheal intubation'/exp OR 'endotracheal intubation') AND ('pediatric'/exp OR pediatric)” to Predict endotracheal tube size/placement in pediatric age (neonate till 18 years) by the US. Bibliographic cross-references of selected publications were further manually screened. The full texts of each article were studied, once the abstract was found appropriate independently by two reviewers. A total of 48 papers published between 2010 and 2020 were identified as relevant and read in detail. Average numbers of patients were 86 and total numbers of patients were 1978. Most of the studies included pediatric patients posted for elective surgeries under general anesthesia and excluded emergency procedures, known laryngeal or tracheal pathology, high-risk patients, recent upper respiratory tract infections or allergy to ultrasound gel. A total of 18 independent correlations were analyzed. Final combined r value calculated from all the included articles was 0.824 (95% CI 0.677, 0.908) with a P < 0.00001 {strong co-relation (r < 0.80)}. Q statistic of 756.484, and I2 statistics of 97.53% showed a large degree of heterogeneity in the effect size across the studies. Use of US for upper airway in pediatric patients is an effective modality and can effectively predict endotracheal tube size estimations in comparison to standard age-based or height-based formulae in the pediatric age group. US is a non-invasive, cost-effective, portable, and reproducible technique as compared to CT and MRI. It also takes less time with increasing expertise and experience. airway us airway usg cricoid cartilage diameter cuffed endotracheal tube endotracheal intubation pediatric point of care us subglottic diameter tracheal tube positioning traditional formulas uncuffed endotracheal tube us assessment of airway us imaging Anesthesiology Pharmacy and materia medica Pallavi Ahluwalia verfasserin aut In Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2006 38(2022), 3, Seite 371-383 (DE-627)518957225 (DE-600)2253976-1 22312730 nnns volume:38 year:2022 number:3 pages:371-383 https://doi.org/10.4103/joacp.JOACP_650_20 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/fdfd7135fadb405890f5043be3d7d13e kostenfrei http://www.joacp.org/article.asp?issn=0970-9185;year=2022;volume=38;issue=3;spage=371;epage=383;aulast=Gupta kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0970-9185 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 38 2022 3 371-383
language	English
source	In Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology 38(2022), 3, Seite 371-383 volume:38 year:2022 number:3 pages:371-383
sourceStr	In Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology 38(2022), 3, Seite 371-383 volume:38 year:2022 number:3 pages:371-383
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	airway us airway usg cricoid cartilage diameter cuffed endotracheal tube endotracheal intubation pediatric point of care us subglottic diameter tracheal tube positioning traditional formulas uncuffed endotracheal tube us assessment of airway us imaging Anesthesiology Pharmacy and materia medica
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Bhavna Gupta @@aut@@ Pallavi Ahluwalia @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2022-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	518957225
id	DOAJ083526315
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ083526315</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230311021624.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230311s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.4103/joacp.JOACP_650_20</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ083526315</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJfdfd7135fadb405890f5043be3d7d13e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RD78.3-87.3</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RS1-441</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bhavna Gupta</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Prediction of endotracheal tube size in the pediatric age group by ultrasound: A systematic review and meta-analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Anatomical differences in the airway in pediatric patients, compared to adults pose many challenges during endotracheal intubation, such as selecting the proper sized endotracheal tube (ETT) during intubation. Our primary objective was to assess how accurate is ultrasound (US) co-relation in comparison to standard age-based formulas in pediatric patients. Meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO 2020, CRD42020220041. Online literature available in PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase, Goggle scholar was searched from year 2000 till November 30, 2020, using relevant Mesh terms, ('airway US' OR (('airway'/exp OR airway) AND ('US'/exp OR US))) AND ('endotracheal intubation'/exp OR 'endotracheal intubation') AND ('pediatric'/exp OR pediatric)” to Predict endotracheal tube size/placement in pediatric age (neonate till 18 years) by the US. Bibliographic cross-references of selected publications were further manually screened. The full texts of each article were studied, once the abstract was found appropriate independently by two reviewers. A total of 48 papers published between 2010 and 2020 were identified as relevant and read in detail. Average numbers of patients were 86 and total numbers of patients were 1978. Most of the studies included pediatric patients posted for elective surgeries under general anesthesia and excluded emergency procedures, known laryngeal or tracheal pathology, high-risk patients, recent upper respiratory tract infections or allergy to ultrasound gel. A total of 18 independent correlations were analyzed. Final combined r value calculated from all the included articles was 0.824 (95% CI 0.677, 0.908) with a P < 0.00001 {strong co-relation (r < 0.80)}. Q statistic of 756.484, and I2 statistics of 97.53% showed a large degree of heterogeneity in the effect size across the studies. Use of US for upper airway in pediatric patients is an effective modality and can effectively predict endotracheal tube size estimations in comparison to standard age-based or height-based formulae in the pediatric age group. US is a non-invasive, cost-effective, portable, and reproducible technique as compared to CT and MRI. It also takes less time with increasing expertise and experience.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">airway us</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">airway usg</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">cricoid cartilage diameter</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">cuffed endotracheal tube</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">endotracheal intubation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">pediatric</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">point of care us</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">subglottic diameter</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">tracheal tube positioning</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">traditional formulas</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">uncuffed endotracheal tube</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">us assessment of airway</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">us imaging</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Anesthesiology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Pharmacy and materia medica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Pallavi Ahluwalia</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology</subfield><subfield code="d">Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2006</subfield><subfield code="g">38(2022), 3, Seite 371-383</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)518957225</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2253976-1</subfield><subfield code="x">22312730</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:38</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:371-383</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.4103/joacp.JOACP_650_20</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/fdfd7135fadb405890f5043be3d7d13e</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.joacp.org/article.asp?issn=0970-9185;year=2022;volume=38;issue=3;spage=371;epage=383;aulast=Gupta</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/0970-9185</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">38</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="h">371-383</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	R - Medicine
author	Bhavna Gupta
spellingShingle	Bhavna Gupta misc RD78.3-87.3 misc RS1-441 misc airway us misc airway usg misc cricoid cartilage diameter misc cuffed endotracheal tube misc endotracheal intubation misc pediatric misc point of care us misc subglottic diameter misc tracheal tube positioning misc traditional formulas misc uncuffed endotracheal tube misc us assessment of airway misc us imaging misc Anesthesiology misc Pharmacy and materia medica Prediction of endotracheal tube size in the pediatric age group by ultrasound: A systematic review and meta-analysis
authorStr	Bhavna Gupta
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)518957225
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	RD78
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	22312730
topic_title	RD78.3-87.3 RS1-441 Prediction of endotracheal tube size in the pediatric age group by ultrasound: A systematic review and meta-analysis airway us airway usg cricoid cartilage diameter cuffed endotracheal tube endotracheal intubation pediatric point of care us subglottic diameter tracheal tube positioning traditional formulas uncuffed endotracheal tube us assessment of airway us imaging
topic	misc RD78.3-87.3 misc RS1-441 misc airway us misc airway usg misc cricoid cartilage diameter misc cuffed endotracheal tube misc endotracheal intubation misc pediatric misc point of care us misc subglottic diameter misc tracheal tube positioning misc traditional formulas misc uncuffed endotracheal tube misc us assessment of airway misc us imaging misc Anesthesiology misc Pharmacy and materia medica
topic_unstemmed	misc RD78.3-87.3 misc RS1-441 misc airway us misc airway usg misc cricoid cartilage diameter misc cuffed endotracheal tube misc endotracheal intubation misc pediatric misc point of care us misc subglottic diameter misc tracheal tube positioning misc traditional formulas misc uncuffed endotracheal tube misc us assessment of airway misc us imaging misc Anesthesiology misc Pharmacy and materia medica
topic_browse	misc RD78.3-87.3 misc RS1-441 misc airway us misc airway usg misc cricoid cartilage diameter misc cuffed endotracheal tube misc endotracheal intubation misc pediatric misc point of care us misc subglottic diameter misc tracheal tube positioning misc traditional formulas misc uncuffed endotracheal tube misc us assessment of airway misc us imaging misc Anesthesiology misc Pharmacy and materia medica
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology
hierarchy_parent_id	518957225
hierarchy_top_title	Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)518957225 (DE-600)2253976-1
title	Prediction of endotracheal tube size in the pediatric age group by ultrasound: A systematic review and meta-analysis
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ083526315 (DE-599)DOAJfdfd7135fadb405890f5043be3d7d13e
title_full	Prediction of endotracheal tube size in the pediatric age group by ultrasound: A systematic review and meta-analysis
author_sort	Bhavna Gupta
journal	Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology
journalStr	Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology
callnumber-first-code	R
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2022
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	371
author_browse	Bhavna Gupta Pallavi Ahluwalia
container_volume	38
class	RD78.3-87.3 RS1-441
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Bhavna Gupta
doi_str_mv	10.4103/joacp.JOACP_650_20
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	prediction of endotracheal tube size in the pediatric age group by ultrasound: a systematic review and meta-analysis
callnumber	RD78.3-87.3
title_auth	Prediction of endotracheal tube size in the pediatric age group by ultrasound: A systematic review and meta-analysis
abstract	Anatomical differences in the airway in pediatric patients, compared to adults pose many challenges during endotracheal intubation, such as selecting the proper sized endotracheal tube (ETT) during intubation. Our primary objective was to assess how accurate is ultrasound (US) co-relation in comparison to standard age-based formulas in pediatric patients. Meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO 2020, CRD42020220041. Online literature available in PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase, Goggle scholar was searched from year 2000 till November 30, 2020, using relevant Mesh terms, ('airway US' OR (('airway'/exp OR airway) AND ('US'/exp OR US))) AND ('endotracheal intubation'/exp OR 'endotracheal intubation') AND ('pediatric'/exp OR pediatric)” to Predict endotracheal tube size/placement in pediatric age (neonate till 18 years) by the US. Bibliographic cross-references of selected publications were further manually screened. The full texts of each article were studied, once the abstract was found appropriate independently by two reviewers. A total of 48 papers published between 2010 and 2020 were identified as relevant and read in detail. Average numbers of patients were 86 and total numbers of patients were 1978. Most of the studies included pediatric patients posted for elective surgeries under general anesthesia and excluded emergency procedures, known laryngeal or tracheal pathology, high-risk patients, recent upper respiratory tract infections or allergy to ultrasound gel. A total of 18 independent correlations were analyzed. Final combined r value calculated from all the included articles was 0.824 (95% CI 0.677, 0.908) with a P < 0.00001 {strong co-relation (r < 0.80)}. Q statistic of 756.484, and I2 statistics of 97.53% showed a large degree of heterogeneity in the effect size across the studies. Use of US for upper airway in pediatric patients is an effective modality and can effectively predict endotracheal tube size estimations in comparison to standard age-based or height-based formulae in the pediatric age group. US is a non-invasive, cost-effective, portable, and reproducible technique as compared to CT and MRI. It also takes less time with increasing expertise and experience.
abstractGer	Anatomical differences in the airway in pediatric patients, compared to adults pose many challenges during endotracheal intubation, such as selecting the proper sized endotracheal tube (ETT) during intubation. Our primary objective was to assess how accurate is ultrasound (US) co-relation in comparison to standard age-based formulas in pediatric patients. Meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO 2020, CRD42020220041. Online literature available in PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase, Goggle scholar was searched from year 2000 till November 30, 2020, using relevant Mesh terms, ('airway US' OR (('airway'/exp OR airway) AND ('US'/exp OR US))) AND ('endotracheal intubation'/exp OR 'endotracheal intubation') AND ('pediatric'/exp OR pediatric)” to Predict endotracheal tube size/placement in pediatric age (neonate till 18 years) by the US. Bibliographic cross-references of selected publications were further manually screened. The full texts of each article were studied, once the abstract was found appropriate independently by two reviewers. A total of 48 papers published between 2010 and 2020 were identified as relevant and read in detail. Average numbers of patients were 86 and total numbers of patients were 1978. Most of the studies included pediatric patients posted for elective surgeries under general anesthesia and excluded emergency procedures, known laryngeal or tracheal pathology, high-risk patients, recent upper respiratory tract infections or allergy to ultrasound gel. A total of 18 independent correlations were analyzed. Final combined r value calculated from all the included articles was 0.824 (95% CI 0.677, 0.908) with a P < 0.00001 {strong co-relation (r < 0.80)}. Q statistic of 756.484, and I2 statistics of 97.53% showed a large degree of heterogeneity in the effect size across the studies. Use of US for upper airway in pediatric patients is an effective modality and can effectively predict endotracheal tube size estimations in comparison to standard age-based or height-based formulae in the pediatric age group. US is a non-invasive, cost-effective, portable, and reproducible technique as compared to CT and MRI. It also takes less time with increasing expertise and experience.
abstract_unstemmed	Anatomical differences in the airway in pediatric patients, compared to adults pose many challenges during endotracheal intubation, such as selecting the proper sized endotracheal tube (ETT) during intubation. Our primary objective was to assess how accurate is ultrasound (US) co-relation in comparison to standard age-based formulas in pediatric patients. Meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO 2020, CRD42020220041. Online literature available in PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase, Goggle scholar was searched from year 2000 till November 30, 2020, using relevant Mesh terms, ('airway US' OR (('airway'/exp OR airway) AND ('US'/exp OR US))) AND ('endotracheal intubation'/exp OR 'endotracheal intubation') AND ('pediatric'/exp OR pediatric)” to Predict endotracheal tube size/placement in pediatric age (neonate till 18 years) by the US. Bibliographic cross-references of selected publications were further manually screened. The full texts of each article were studied, once the abstract was found appropriate independently by two reviewers. A total of 48 papers published between 2010 and 2020 were identified as relevant and read in detail. Average numbers of patients were 86 and total numbers of patients were 1978. Most of the studies included pediatric patients posted for elective surgeries under general anesthesia and excluded emergency procedures, known laryngeal or tracheal pathology, high-risk patients, recent upper respiratory tract infections or allergy to ultrasound gel. A total of 18 independent correlations were analyzed. Final combined r value calculated from all the included articles was 0.824 (95% CI 0.677, 0.908) with a P < 0.00001 {strong co-relation (r < 0.80)}. Q statistic of 756.484, and I2 statistics of 97.53% showed a large degree of heterogeneity in the effect size across the studies. Use of US for upper airway in pediatric patients is an effective modality and can effectively predict endotracheal tube size estimations in comparison to standard age-based or height-based formulae in the pediatric age group. US is a non-invasive, cost-effective, portable, and reproducible technique as compared to CT and MRI. It also takes less time with increasing expertise and experience.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	3
title_short	Prediction of endotracheal tube size in the pediatric age group by ultrasound: A systematic review and meta-analysis
url	https://doi.org/10.4103/joacp.JOACP_650_20 https://doaj.org/article/fdfd7135fadb405890f5043be3d7d13e http://www.joacp.org/article.asp?issn=0970-9185;year=2022;volume=38;issue=3;spage=371;epage=383;aulast=Gupta https://doaj.org/toc/0970-9185
remote_bool	true
author2	Pallavi Ahluwalia
author2Str	Pallavi Ahluwalia
ppnlink	518957225
callnumber-subject	RD - Surgery
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.4103/joacp.JOACP_650_20
callnumber-a	RD78.3-87.3
up_date	2024-07-03T17:57:28.682Z
_version_	1803581599230459906
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ083526315</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230311021624.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230311s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.4103/joacp.JOACP_650_20</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ083526315</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJfdfd7135fadb405890f5043be3d7d13e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RD78.3-87.3</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RS1-441</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bhavna Gupta</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Prediction of endotracheal tube size in the pediatric age group by ultrasound: A systematic review and meta-analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Anatomical differences in the airway in pediatric patients, compared to adults pose many challenges during endotracheal intubation, such as selecting the proper sized endotracheal tube (ETT) during intubation. Our primary objective was to assess how accurate is ultrasound (US) co-relation in comparison to standard age-based formulas in pediatric patients. Meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO 2020, CRD42020220041. Online literature available in PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase, Goggle scholar was searched from year 2000 till November 30, 2020, using relevant Mesh terms, ('airway US' OR (('airway'/exp OR airway) AND ('US'/exp OR US))) AND ('endotracheal intubation'/exp OR 'endotracheal intubation') AND ('pediatric'/exp OR pediatric)” to Predict endotracheal tube size/placement in pediatric age (neonate till 18 years) by the US. Bibliographic cross-references of selected publications were further manually screened. The full texts of each article were studied, once the abstract was found appropriate independently by two reviewers. A total of 48 papers published between 2010 and 2020 were identified as relevant and read in detail. Average numbers of patients were 86 and total numbers of patients were 1978. Most of the studies included pediatric patients posted for elective surgeries under general anesthesia and excluded emergency procedures, known laryngeal or tracheal pathology, high-risk patients, recent upper respiratory tract infections or allergy to ultrasound gel. A total of 18 independent correlations were analyzed. Final combined r value calculated from all the included articles was 0.824 (95% CI 0.677, 0.908) with a P < 0.00001 {strong co-relation (r < 0.80)}. Q statistic of 756.484, and I2 statistics of 97.53% showed a large degree of heterogeneity in the effect size across the studies. Use of US for upper airway in pediatric patients is an effective modality and can effectively predict endotracheal tube size estimations in comparison to standard age-based or height-based formulae in the pediatric age group. US is a non-invasive, cost-effective, portable, and reproducible technique as compared to CT and MRI. It also takes less time with increasing expertise and experience.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">airway us</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">airway usg</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">cricoid cartilage diameter</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">cuffed endotracheal tube</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">endotracheal intubation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">pediatric</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">point of care us</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">subglottic diameter</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">tracheal tube positioning</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">traditional formulas</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">uncuffed endotracheal tube</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">us assessment of airway</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">us imaging</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Anesthesiology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Pharmacy and materia medica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Pallavi Ahluwalia</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology</subfield><subfield code="d">Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2006</subfield><subfield code="g">38(2022), 3, Seite 371-383</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)518957225</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2253976-1</subfield><subfield code="x">22312730</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:38</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:371-383</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.4103/joacp.JOACP_650_20</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/fdfd7135fadb405890f5043be3d7d13e</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.joacp.org/article.asp?issn=0970-9185;year=2022;volume=38;issue=3;spage=371;epage=383;aulast=Gupta</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/0970-9185</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">38</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="h">371-383</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.401924

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Prediction of endotracheal tube size in the pediatric age group by ultrasound: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?