Effects of a closed system suction connector on airway resistance in ventilated neonates.
暂无分享,去创建一个
S. Aktaş | E. Ergenekon | I. Hirfanoğlu | E. Kazancı | F. Kulali | Y. Atalay | S. Ünal | C. Türkyılmaz | C. Türkyilmaz
[1] Vadim A Ivanov. Reduction of Endotracheal Tube Connector Dead Space Improves Ventilation: A Bench Test on a Model Lung Simulating an Extremely Low Birth Weight Neonate , 2016, Respiratory Care.
[2] S. Aktaş,et al. 1792 Different Endotracheal Tubes, Different Connectors, Different Lengths: Impact on Resistance and Dead Space , 2012, Archives of Disease in Childhood.
[3] E. Bancalari,et al. Effects of instrumental dead space reduction during weaning from synchronized ventilation in preterm infants , 2010, Journal of Perinatology.
[4] D. Pogson,et al. Closed system endotracheal suctioning maintains lung volume during volume controlled mechanical ventilation , 2002, Intensive Care Medicine.
[5] L. Cordero,et al. Comparison of a Closed (Trach Care MAC) With an Open Endotracheal Suction System in Small Premature Infants , 2000, Journal of Perinatology.
[6] G R Bernard,et al. In vitro versus in vivo comparison of endotracheal tube airflow resistance. , 1989, The American review of respiratory disease.
[7] T. Wisborg,et al. Resistance of tracheal tubes 3.0 and 3.5 mm internal diameter , 1985, Anaesthesia.
[8] D. Hatch. Tracheal tubes and connectors used in neonates--dimensions and resistance to breathing. , 1978, British journal of anaesthesia.