“An endotracheal tube is again seen and unchanged with its distal tip approximately 4.2 cm above the level of the carina.”
Can be more concisely written as:
“Stable ET tube about 4 cm above the carina.”
The Flesch-Kinkaid reading grade level on the first sentence is 13.3, but drops to 6.2 on the edited version. That is hyperlucent reporting!
I agree with using incontrovertible abbreviations like “ET tube”, but err on the side of spelling it out.
I’ve taken to giving only whole and half centimeter increments for ET tubes. Reporting “4 cm” looks cleaner to me than “4.2 cm”. I don’t think I can tell 0.2 cm with any precision, and I’m sure it’s not required. For some reason 4.5 cm or 6.5 cm looks better to me than 4.2 cm or 6.7 cm for example.