Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Demonstrates close agreement between esophageal and tympanic temperatures near the maximal heart-sound position in surgical patients, suggesting optimal placement landmarks.
Background and Objectives: The distal esophagus is a preferred site for intraoperative core-temperature monitoring, but there is no consensus on the insertion depth of an esophageal stethoscope with a thermistor (EST). We aimed to identify the depth of closest agreement with tympanic membrane (TM) temperature and the acceptable range around it. Materials and Methods: Forty adults (ASA I–II, 20–65 years) undergoing elective supine surgery under general anesthesia were studied prospectively (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05552092). After induction, an 18-Fr EST was inserted orally, and the maximal heart-sound (MHS) depth was recorded by auscultation. From 30 min after induction, it was withdrawn in 2-cm steps every 5 min through ten positions (45 to 27 cm), with paired esophageal and TM measurements at each step. Results: The mean TM−esophageal difference rose from −0.27 °C at 45 cm to +0.77 °C at 27 cm, with the population mean crossing zero at 38.0 cm. At each patient’s best-agreement step, selected post hoc as the closest of ten, bias was −0.02 °C (95% limits of agreement −0.14 to +0.11 °C), with all patients within ±0.5 °C. The per-patient interpolated zero-crossing depth lay 2.1 cm deeper than the MHS position (p < 0.001). Exploratory analysis showed that placement from MHS −1 cm to at least +4 cm kept ≥90% of measurements within ±0.5 °C. Only the MHS position was associated with the best-agreement step (r = 0.39, p = 0.014), accounting for 15% of its variance. Conclusions: The EST agreed closely with TM temperature over a wide range of depths centered just distal to the MHS position, and shallow placement degraded accuracy faster than deep placement. The MHS position is a bedside landmark rather than a predictor of an individual patient’s depth, and the range derived here requires prospective validation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jong et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: