Effects of Different Endotracheal Tube Cuff Pressure Management Modes on Postoperative Sore Throat in Patients undergoing Endotracheal Intubation for General Anesthesia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2542152/v1

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the effects of different methods of tube cuff pressure management on postoperative sore throat (POST). Methods One hundred and twenty patients, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I–II, who were scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia, were randomly divided into three groups: the minimum hermetically sealed pressure group (MOP group, n = 40), the measure and control endotracheal tube cuff group (ETTc group, n = 40) and the control group (Con group, n = 40). Midazolam, propofol, cisatracurium, and sufentanil were used to induce anesthesia in all three groups, while propofol, remifentanil, and atracurium were used to maintain anesthesia. We observed the peak airway pressure (Pmax), mean airway pressure (Pmean), partial respiratory CO2 pressure (PETCO2), mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2), and tube cuff pressure at 1 min (T0), 5 min (T1), 30 min (T2), and 60 min (T3) after intubation, and at 5 min before extubation min (T4). The circulating respiratory index was maintained stable during the operation. POST was evaluated by the Prince Henry Hospital pain scale. Results The total incidence of POST was 40%, while it was 20% in the MOP group, 37.5% in the ETTc group, and 62.5% in the Control group. The incidence of POST was positively related to the cuff pressure, particularly at 24 h after the operation. The severity of POST differed with cuff pressure, particularly at 24 h after the operation. Conclusion Application of MOP is advantageous for maintaining the airway during the operation.

Introduction

Postoperative sore throat (POST) is a common complication after endotracheal intubation. According to Lehmann et al.’s survey, POST was the second most-important factor causing postoperative discomfort in patients [1]. In order to improve the postoperative comfort of patients, various studies have attempted different methods to prevent sore throat. Arts et al. showed that the use of lidocaine can reduce POST [2]. Farhang et al. indicated that the use of zinc 30 min before surgery reduced the incidence of POST within 2 h after surgery by 24% [3]. Koyama et al. suggested that the use of lubricants on the sleeves of the endotracheal tube could also alleviate POST [4]. Chang et al. proved that using tapered air bags as opposed to cylindrical air bags could reduce the incidence of POST [5].

With continuous in-depth research into the factors causing POST, the cuff pressure of the tracheal catheter has gradually attracted attention. Gaur et al. stated that the incidence of POST was positively correlated with the cuff pressure of the tracheal catheter [6]. Ganason et al. demonstrated that adjusting tube cuff pressure to < 25 cmH2O could significantly decrease the incidence of POST [7]. At present, in China, subjects of studies based on the tube cuff pressure have mostly been limited to ICU patients who require mechanical ventilation. There have been few reports on balloon pressure in patients undergoing general anesthesia during surgery, and particularly on the influence of the minimum hermetically sealed pressure (MOP) management mode on POST.

The purpose of this study was to use a special balloon manometer to monitor the endotracheal tube cuff pressure accurately and compare the influence of different balloon pressures during surgery on POST in patients undergoing tracheal intubation, in order to provide a reference for reasonable management of balloon pressure in clinical anesthesia, in an effort to reduce the incidence of POST and improve the postoperative comfort of patients.

Methods

Subjects

The study was approved by the hospital Ethics Committee, and the patients and their family members signed informed consent forms. A total of 120 patients who underwent elective abdominal and lower extremity operations, without a history of smoking or throat diseases, who underwent surgery in the supine position, without insertion of a nutritional tube or gastric tube, were selected. The subjects included 60 men and 60 women who were successfully intubated, aged 18–70 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists I–II, and Mallampati Score I–II.

Subject groups

The 120 patients were randomly allocated to the MOP group, the measure and control endotracheal tube cuff (ETTc) group, and the control (Con) group. Each group consisted of 40 patients (20 males and 20 females). In the MOP group, during positive-pressure ventilation, 0.25–0.5 ml of gas was gradually pumped from the bag each compression until a small amount of air leakage occurred when the suction pressure peaked, after which another 0.25–0.5 ml of gas was injected [8]. In the ETTc group, the pressure value was 15–25 mmHg (20–33 cmH2O) [9]. In the Con group, the finger-pinch method was used, in which the fingers were used to feel the pressure inside the capsule, and inflation was stopped when the appropriate pressure was reached [10].

Anesthesia protocol

All patients were routinely on a water-fast before surgery and received an intramuscular injection of 0.5 mg penehyclidine hydrochloride at 30 min before the operation. Blood pressure (BP), electrocardiograph (ECG), heart rate (HR), and pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2) were routinely monitored after entering the operating room. As induction drugs, the following were intravenously injected: midazolam 0.05–0.08 mg/kg, sufentanil 0.3–0.5 µg/kg, cisatracurium 0.15–0.2 mg/kg, propofol 0.8–1 mg/kg. The routine calibration of the TOF-watch adopted four serial stimuli (train-of-four [TOF]: frequency, 2 Hz; wave width, 200 µs; current intensity, 50 mA; interval, 15 s). When TOF = 0, endotracheal intubation was performed by an anesthesiologist skilled in intubation (endotracheal intubation type was the high pressure and low volume type, male: ID 7.5 mm, intubation depth, 23 cm; female: ID 7.0 mm, intubation depth 21 cm). Then, mechanical ventilation was performed: tidal volume was 8–12 ml/kg, the frequency was 8–12 times/min, pure oxygen was inhaled, and the flow rate was 1–2 L/min. A special capsule manometer (German VBM balloon manometer, Shanghai Yipu Medical Technology Co., LTD., Shanghai, China) was used to measure the pressure inside the capsule intermittently (every 20 min) to maintain the stability of the pressure inside the capsule. For maintenance of anesthesia, we used propofol 3–4 mg.kg− 1.h− 1, atracurium 0.6–0.8 mg.kg− 1.h− 1, remifentanil 6–8 µg.kg− 1. For TOF muscle relaxation monitoring, we used T4/T1 < 25%. At the end of surgery, when T4/T1 values were at 75%, we deflated the indicator sleeve, and gently pulled out the tracheal tube. The intravenous analgesia pump was installed 5 min before the end of the operation, and contained 100 ml of sufentanil (3 µg/kg), butorphanol tartrate injection (0.1 mg/kg), and azasetron (20 mg), in normal saline.

Observation

Observational indexes were HR, MAP, Pmax, Pmean, PETCO2, SpO2, operative time, anesthesia time, postoperative throat pain and incision pain scores (according to Prince Henry Hospital Pain Scale score and visual analogue scale [11]).

Respiratory and circulatory parameters were recorded at 5 time points, including 1 min after intubation (T0), 5 min after intubation (T1), 30 min after intubation (T2), 60 min after intubation (T3), and 5 min before extubation (T4), as well as throat pain and incision score at 1 h, 24 h, and 48 h after surgery.

Statistical Analysis

SPASS20.0 statistical software was used to establish a database for statistical analysis. The rank-sum test was used for ranked data, chi-square test was used for enumeration data comparison, and measurement data were expressed as " mean ± SD" (x̄ ± s). One-way analysis of variance was used for comparison of data at different time points within the group, and comparison of data at the same time point and between different groups. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

General data

There were no significant differences in sex, age, weight, height, and anesthesia time among the three groups (P > 0.05; Table 1).

Table 1

General data of patients (n = 40, x̄ ± s)

Group

Sex/n

Male Female

Age

(y)

Weight

(kg)

Height

(cm)

Anesthesia time

(min)

MOP

20 20

47.63 ± 13.54

63.30 ± 9.17

166.00 ± 7.50

84.25 ± 15.75

ETTc

20 20

48.70 ± 12.60

65.00 ± 9.21

165.80 ± 6.99

84.30 ± 15.75

Con

20 20

47.55 ± 13.32

64.03 ± 9.06

166.30 ± 6.87

80.63 ± 18.05

 

Incision pain score

The rank-sum test showed no significant difference in incision pain scores at 1 h, 24 h, and 48 h after surgery among the three groups, P > 0.05 (Table 2).

Table 2

Postoperative incision pain scores (visual analogue scale scores, n = 40)

Score

MOP group

ETTc group

Con group

 

1 h

24 h

48 h

 1 h

24 h

48 h

1 h

24 h

48 h

0

2

6

18

5

10

19

2

3

9

1

2

7

9

3

3

6

2

6

17

2

5

13

6

5

12

10

6

15

10

3

15

6

6

11

7

5

14

8

3

4

9

6

1

8

5

0

7

7

0

5

5

2

0

5

1

0

4

1

0

6

2

0

0

3

2

0

5

0

1

 

Respiratory and circulatory indexes

There was no significant difference in intraoperative vital signs among the three groups, P > 0.05 (Table 3).

Table 3

Comparison of Pmax, Pmean, PETCO2, MAP, and HR at each time point during anesthesia (n = 40, x̄ ± s)

Index

Group

T0

T1

T2

T3

T4

 

MOP

15.43 ± 2.01

16.13 ± 3.08

16.40 ± 2.98

16.65 ± 2.80

16.23 ± 2.04

Pmax/mmHg

ETTc

15.43 ± 2.58

15.80 ± 2.93

16.48 ± 2.84

16.45 ± 2.76

16.50 ± 2.65

 

Con

15.55 ± 2.10

15.88 ± 2.40

16.50 ± 2.35

16.20 ± 2.33

16.08 ± 2.36

 

MOP

5.83 ± 1.01

6.18 ± 1.28

6.45 ± 1.34

6.15 ± 1.08

5.95 ± 0.90

Pmean/mmHg

ETTc

5.45 ± 0.90

5.65 ± 1.00

6.08 ± 1.14

5.88 ± 0.94

5.93 ± 0.86

 

Con

5.83 ± 0.98

6.10 ± 0.90

6.35 ± 1.00

6.08 ± 1.16

6.18 ± 1.11

 

MOP

30.08 ± 3.49

29.83 ± 3.05

29.53 ± 2.98

29.68 ± 3.15

29.95 ± 2.80

PETCO2/mmHg

ETTc

30.30 ± 3.76

30.40 ± 3.40

30.18 ± 3.78

30.15 ± 3.45

30.10 ± 3.45

 

Con

31.03 ± 10.65

30.45 ± 10.46

31.05 ± 10.51

30.98 ± 11.22

31.68 ± 10.78

 

MOP

81.38 ± 9.03

80.30 ± 10.23

84.55 ± 9.49

84.55 ± 10.34

87.00 ± 10.85

MAP/mmHg

ETTc

83.20 ± 8.53

83.125 ± 8.66

83.475 ± 9.73

85.00 ± 10.40

86.08 ± 9.75

 

Con

82.23 ± 14.84

79.13 ± 13.98

81.08 ± 14.18

81.50 ± 13.56

84.35 ± 13.77

 

MOP

67.13 ± 10.45

65.13 ± 11.01

63.50 ± 10.79

64.55 ± 10.85

68.48 ± 10.76

HR/bpm

ETTc

66.85 ± 9.35

65.30 ± 9.50

65.90 ± 9.79

65.95 ± 9.98

66.80 ± 8.97

 

Con

69.58 ± 14.08

66.20 ± 14.11

66.63 ± 14.00

66.60 ± 13.81

71.25 ± 13.11

Pmax, peak airway pressure; Pmean, mean airway pressure; PETCO2, partial respiratory CO2 pressure; MAP, mean arterial pressure; HR, heart rate; T0, 1 min after intubation; T1, 5 min after intubation, T2, 30 min after intubation, T3, 60 min after intubation; T4, 5 min before extubation

Results of tube cuff pressure monitoring

The endotracheal tube cuff pressure results in the MOP, ETTc, and Con groups were presented in Table 4. The pressure values of the three groups were analyzed by F test and q test in analysis of variance. As shown in Table 4, the results indicated that the cuff pressure of the three groups were statistically significantly different (P < 0.05).

Table 4

The endotracheal tube cuff pressure monitoring results of three groups (n = 40, x̄ ± s)

 

MOP group

ETTc group

Con group

Cuff pressure (cmH2O)

9.23 0.83ab

24.18 2.35a

45.25 2.66

Note: Compared with the Con group, aP < 0.05; Compared with ETTc group, bP < 0.05.

 

Incidence of POST in the three groups

As shown in Table 5, the overall incidence of POST was 40%, whereas the incidence of POST in the MOP, ETTc, and Con groups was 20%, 37.5%, and 62.5%, respectively. There were statistically significant differences among the three groups (P < 0.05). The results were compared at the same time point between the groups: the incidence of POST in MOP group and ETTc group was lower than that in Con group at 1 h after operation (P < 0.05); the incidence of POST in the MOP group was lower than that in Con group at 48 h after the operation (P < 0.05). The results were also compared at different time points within each group: the incidence of POST at 48 h after operation was lower than that at 24 h after the operation in the MOP group (P < 0.05). The incidence rate of POST was lower at 48 h after surgery than that at 1 h and 24 h after surgery in the ETTc group (P < 0.05). Post-hoc multiple comparisons analyses indicated that the incidence of POST at 1 h, 24 h, and 48 h after surgery in the Con group was significantly different (P < 0.05).

Table 5

Comparison of POST incidence (Prince Henry Hospital Pain Scale Score)

Group

Incidence

1 h (%)

24 h (%)

48 h (%)

Total (%)

MOP

10a

12.5ab

2.5ad

20ab

ETTc

17.5a

25

7.5cd

37.5a

Con

27.5

45c

12.5cd

62.5

Note: compared with the Con group, aP < 0.05; compared with ETTc group, bP < 0.05; compared with 1 h after surgery, cP < 0.05; compared with 24 h after surgery, dP < 0.05.

 

Correlation of POST incidence and cuff pressure

A correlation analysis was performed, with the tube cuff pressure as the independent variable and the incidence of POST as the dependent variable. According to the Prince Henry Hospital Pain Scale scoring criteria, the incidence of POST was positively correlated with the airbag pressure at the same time point: r = 0.893, at 1 h after surgery (FIG. 1A); r = 0.931, at 24 h after surgery (FIG. 1B); r = 0.854, at 48 h after surgery (FIG. 1C). The results showed that the correlation between the two variables was strongest at 24 h after operation.

Comparison of POST Prince Henry Hospital Pain Scale scores among the three groups

As shown in Table 6, there was no significant difference in the POST Prince Henry Hospital Pain Scale scores among the MOP, ETTc, and Con groups at 1 h after operation (P > 0.05). There was a significant difference between the groups at 24 h after operation (P < 0.05). The Prince Henry Hospital Pain Scale scores among the three groups showed no significant difference at 48 h after surgery (P > 0.05). There was also no significant difference in POST Prince Henry Hospital Pain Scale scores in the MOP group at 1 h, 24 h, and 48 h after the operation (P > 0.05). However, the pain score of the ETTc group at 48 h after surgery was significantly different from that at 1 h after surgery (P < 0.05). Additionally, the pain score of the Con group at 48 h after surgery was significantly different from that at 1 h and at 24 h after surgery (P < 0.05).

Table 6

Postoperative sore throat pain scores (Prince Henry Hospital Pain Scale, n = 40)

Score

MOP group

ETTc group

Con group

 

1 h

24 h

48 h

1 h

24 h

48 h

1 h

24 h

48 h

1–2

6

1ab

1

12

18

4cd

18

   

3

0

1ab

0

0

0

0c

3

0

0cd

Note: Compared with the Con group, aP < 0.05; compared with the ETTc group, bP < 0.05; compared with 1 h after surgery, cP < 0.05; compared with 24 h after surgery, dP < 0.05.

Discussion

POST is a common complication after general anesthesia with tracheal intubation, and its severity is mainly dictated by the pressure on the tracheal mucosa and the perfusion pressure of the tracheal mucosa itself [12]. Monitoring of the pressure on the tracheal mucosa is complicated; therefore, it cannot be measured directly in clinical practice. However, this pressure is relatively well correlated with the endotracheal tube cuff pressure. Therefore, the cuff pressure can indirectly reflect the pressure on the tracheal mucosa. The MOP is the minimum pressure that effectively seals the gap between the cuff and the trachea [5]. Li et al. suggested that the MOP management mode could ensure effective ventilation of patients and could reduce the occurrence of complications [8]. Sole et al. recommended an ETTc pressure of 15–25 mmHg (20–33 cmH2O) [9]. However, it is unscientific to evaluate the cuff pressure based on clinical experience only [13], as it may easily lead to excessively high cuff pressure, causing damage to the tracheal mucosa. In this study, muscle relaxants were administered continuously using a micropump, to exclude POST caused by swallowing due to insufficient muscle relaxants, which would affect the accuracy of the results. Our results confirmed that tracheal intubation per se under general anesthesia did indeed cause POST.

The trachea is an organ that can be contracted by the action of breathing, but the extent of contraction possible is limited. When the pressure of the endotracheal tube cuff exceeds the bearing capacity of the trachea, the tracheal mucosa can be damaged [14]. During mechanical ventilation, if the cuff pressure of the endotracheal tube exceeds 10 mmHg (13 cmH2O, interstitial fluid colloid osmotic pressure), or even reaches or exceeds 20 mmHg (27 cmH2O), local edema of the compressed tracheal mucosa is unavoidable [15]. Xu wrote that, when the endotracheal tube cuff pressure reached 2.942 kPa (22 cmH2O), the blood flow in the tracheal mucosa began to decrease. When it reached 3.923 kPa (29 cmH2O), the blood supply could be completely blocked, leading to ischemic injury of the tracheal mucosa. When it exceeded 4.904 kPa (37 cmH2O), columnar necrosis and even serious complications, such as perforation and rupture of the airway wall, occurred [16]. Therefore, we consider that the endotracheal tube cuff inflating and deflating constitutes a process of ischemia–reperfusion. Dong et al. suggested that ischemia–reperfusion injury was an inflammatory reaction [17]. Various cytokines are expressed and inflammatory cells infiltrate in the ischemia–reperfusion injury area, which forms the basis of the transformation from ischemia–reperfusion injury to inflammatory injury. Puyo et al. found that the number of multinucleate cells increased 10-fold, and tumor necrosis factor interleukin-6 (IL-6), IL-1β, and C5a were all significantly increased after 3 h of endotracheal intubation [18]. The occurrence and development of pain is closely related to the inflammatory response caused by injurious stimuli [19]. Zhang et al. compared the pathological changes in the tracheal mucosa when the cuff pressure was 10 mmHg (13 cmH2O) or 20 mmHg (27 cmH2O). They found slight pathological changes in the low-pressure group, while the main pathological changes were the infiltration of the tracheal mucosa by inflammatory cells, leading to hyperemia and edema. The damage in the high-pressure group was significantly greater than that in the low-pressure group [20]. Therefore, we speculate that POST is related to the inflammatory response caused by ischemia–reperfusion injury.

According to the Prince Henry Hospital Scale scoring criteria, the incidence of POST in the MOP, ETTc, and Con groups were 20%, 37.5%, and 62.5%, respectively. The results suggested that different cuff pressure management modes have an effect on the incidence of POST. In the results of this study, there was no significant difference in incision pain among the three groups, as assessed by a visual analogue scale; thus, the effect of the postoperative analgesia pump on POST could be excluded, further suggesting that different tube cuff pressure management modes have an impact on the incidence of POST.

We then conducted a correlation analysis to determine the relationship between the incidence of POST and the cuff pressure. The results indicated that the incidence of POST increased with the increase in cuff pressure, and the relationship between the incidence of POST and the cuff pressure was strongest at 24 h after the operation. The results of the POST pain score also showed that the degree of POST-related pain was different with different tube cuff pressures, and this was most significant at 24 h after surgery. The incidence of POST at 24 h after surgery and the degree of POST were closely related to the tube cuff pressure. The results reported by Zhang et al. supported our conclusion [26]. The POST pain score also showed that with a cuff pressure > 10 cmH2O, the degree of POST was statistically significantly different at the three observation time points, which indirectly suggests that high cuff pressure caused more severe POST, and that POST gradually eased over time.

In conclusion, our results indicate that the MOP management mode is the ideal intraoperative cuff pressure management mode. MOP not only seals the airway effectively, but also reduces the incidence of POST.

Abbreviations

BP: blood pressure

ECG: electrocardiograph

ETTc: measure and control endotracheal tube cuff

HR: heart rate

MAP: mean arterial pressure

MOP: minimum hermetically sealed pressure

PETCO2: partial respiratory CO2 pressure

Pmax: peak airway pressure

Pmean: mean airway pressure

POST: postoperative sore throat

SpO2: pulse oxygen saturation

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate: This research project was reviewed by the Ethics Committee of Tai ‘an City Center and met the requirements of the "Measures for Biomedical Ethics Review Involving Humans". Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Data availability The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Competing interests The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Author Contributions All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Jing Liu, Hongzhi Li, Wei Ren, Tingting Wang and Zaiqi Yang. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Jing Liu and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgement This work was supported by Clinical Research Funds of Shandong Medical Association-Qilu Special Support (grant no. YXH2022ZX02093).

References

  1. Lehmann M, Monte K, Barach P, Kindler CH. Postoperative patient complaints: a prospective interview study of 12,276 patients. J Clin Anesth. 2010,22:13-21.
  2. Arts MP, Rettig TC, de Vries J, Wolfs JF, in't Veld BA. Maintaining endotracheal tube cuff pressure at 20 mm Hg to prevent dysphagia after anterior cervical spine surgery; protocol of a double-blind randomised controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:280.
  3. Farhang B, Grondin L. The effect of zinc lozenge on postoperative sore throat: a prospective randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. Anesth Analg 2018,126:78-83.
  4. Koyama Y, Oshika H, Nishioka H, et al. K-Y jelly inhibits increase in endotracheal tube cuff pressure during nitrous oxide exposure in vitro. BMC Anesthesiol. 2018;18:99.
  5. Chang JE, Kim H, Han SH, Lee JM, Ji S, Hwang JY. Effect of endotracheal tube cuff shape on postoperative sore throat after endotracheal intubation. Anesth Analg. 2017,125:1240–5.
  6. Gaur P, Ubale P, Khadanga P. Efficacy and safety of using air versus alkalinized 2% lignocaine for inflating endotracheal tube cuff and its pressure effects on incidence of postoperative coughing and sore throat. Anesth Essays Res. 2017;11:1057-1063.
  7. Ganason N, Sivanaser V, Liu CY, Maaya M, Ooi JSM. Post-operative sore throat: comparing the monitored endotracheal tube cuff pressure and pilot balloon palpation methods. Malays J Med Sci. 2019;26:132-138.
  8. Li L, Dai G, Wen J. Observation on the clinical effect of two artificial airway balloon management methods. Southern J Nurs. 2005,12(1):57.
  9. Jones R, Ueda I. Cuff bulk of tracheal tubes in adolescence. Can Anaesth. 1996;43:514-7.
  10. Sun H, Zhang J, Li X. Nursing experience of 38 cases with ARDS mechanical ventilation. Qilu Nurs J. 2006;12:409-10.
  11. An Y, Qiu H, Huang Q, et al. Guidelines on Analgesia and sedation for patients in intensive care units in China (2006). Chin J Surg. 2006;44:1158.
  12. Peng Y, Luo R, Gong X, et al. Clinical research and Application of cuff pressure monitoring in mechanical ventilation. Int J Nurs. 2006;25:424.
  13. Chen L, Li S. Research progress of artificial airway balloon pressure management, Qilu Nurs J. 2009;15:493
  14. Sole ML, Penoyer DA, Su X, et al. Assessment of endotracheal cuff pressure by continuous monitoring: A pilot study. Am J Care. 2009;18:133-43.
  15. Wei H, Fu C, Rong L, et al. Discussion on the selection of inflatable method of the sac. Chinese J Resp Crit Care. 2006;5:26.
  16. Xu H. Progress in the management of artificial airway balloon in patients with mechanical ventilation. Med Ethics Practice, 2011, 21(18): 2181-2182.
  17. Dong L, Chen Z. Myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury and inflammation. Chin J Clin Pharmacol Therapeutics. 2008;13:582.
  18. Puyo CA, Dahms TE. Innate immunity mediating inflammation secondary to endotracheal intubation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;138:854-5.
  19. Liu S, Liu HQ. Cytokines and neuropeptides regulate pain in peripheral tissues. Pain 2002;10:37.
  20. Zhang Z, Wang Y, Zhang J. Influence of different tracheal cannula sleeve pressure on tracheal mucosa. J China Medical University. 2006;35:152-3.