A comatose patient with a possible cervical spine injury is intubated with a nasal ET tube. What is a disadvantage of a nasal ET tube compared to an oral ET tube?

The choice indicating that a nasal ET tube requires greater respiratory effort in breathing is a nuanced consideration. When comparing nasal and oral endotracheal tubes, nasal tubes can introduce airflow resistance issues. This resistance is partly due to the narrower diameter of the nasal passages compared to the oral route, which can hamper optimal airflow. In situations where a patient is already compromised, such as being comatose or having significant respiratory issues, this additional resistance can lead to increased work of breathing, making it harder for the patient to achieve efficient ventilation.

Moreover, nasal tubes may also lead to complications such as sinusitis or nasal trauma, which can further impact the respiratory efficiency, but the fundamental aspect of increased resistance and therefore greater effort in breathing is a pivotal point in this choice. In contrast, oral endotracheal tubes generally provide a more direct pathway for airflow and typically do not impose the same level of resistance, making them easier for patients to ventilate effectively under mechanical support.