Dataset Information

A randomized comparison between the VivaSight double-lumen tube and standard double-lumen tube intubation in thoracic surgery patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Thoracic surgery often demands separation of ventilation between the lungs. It is achieved with double-lumen tubes (DLTs), video double-lumen tubes (VDLTs) or bronchial blockers. We tested the hypothesis that intubation with the VivaSight double-lumen tube would be easier and faster than with a standard DLT.

Methods

Seventy-one adult patients undergoing thoracic procedures that required general anaesthesia and one-lung ventilation (OLV) were enrolled in this randomized, prospective study. Patients were randomly assigned to procedure of intubation with a standard DLT or VDLT. The collected data included: patients' demographics, surgery information, anthropometric tests used for difficult intubation prediction, specifics of intubation procedure, tube placement, fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB) use, lung separation, trachea temperature, and reported complications of intubation.

Results

For DLTs compared to video-double lumen tubes, intubation time was significantly longer (125 vs. 44 s; P<0.001), intubation graded harder (P<0.05) and FOB use was more prevalent [8 (20.5%) vs. 0; P<0.05].

Conclusions

The use of VDLTs when compared with standard-double lumen tubes offers reduced intubation time and is relatively easier. Also, the reduced need for fibreoptic bronchoscopy may improve the cost-effectiveness of VDLT use. In addition, constant visualization of the airways during the procedure allows to quickly correct or even prevent the tube malposition.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04101734.

SUBMITTER: Palaczynski P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9641341 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A randomized comparison between the VivaSight double-lumen tube and standard double-lumen tube intubation in thoracic surgery patients.

Palaczynski Piotr P Misiolek Hanna H Bialka Szymon S Owczarek Aleksander J AJ Gola Wojciech W Szarpak Łukasz Ł Smereka Jacek J

Journal of thoracic disease 20221001 10

<h4>Background</h4>Thoracic surgery often demands separation of ventilation between the lungs. It is achieved with double-lumen tubes (DLTs), video double-lumen tubes (VDLTs) or bronchial blockers. We tested the hypothesis that intubation with the VivaSight double-lumen tube would be easier and faster than with a standard DLT.<h4>Methods</h4>Seventy-one adult patients undergoing thoracic procedures that required general anaesthesia and one-lung ventilation (OLV) were enrolled in this randomized, ...[more]

PMID: 36389329

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDouble-lumen tube is commonly used in thoracic surgeries that need one-lung ventilation, but its big size and stiff structure make it harder to perform intubation than a conventional tracheal intubation tube.ObjectivesTo investigate the effectiveness and safety of videoscopes for double-lumen tube insertion. The primary outcome was the success rate of first attempt intubation. Secondary outcomes were intubation time, malposition, oral mucosal damage, sore throat, and external manipulation.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesDatabases (Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, Kmbase, Web of science, Scopus) up to June 23, 2020 were searched.EligibilityRandomized controlled trials comparing different videoscopes for double-lumen tube intubation were included in this study.MethodsWe classified and lumped the videoscope devices into the following groups: standard (non-channeled) videolaryngoscope, channeled videolaryngoscope, videostylet, and direct laryngoscope. After assessing the quality of evidence, we statistically analyzed and chose the best device based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) by using STATA software (version 16).ResultsWe included 23 studies (2012 patients). Based on the success rate of the first attempt, a rankogram suggested that the standard videolaryngoscope (76.4 of SUCRA) was the best choice, followed by videostylet (65.5), channeled videolaryngoscope (36.1), and direct laryngoscope (22.1), respectively. However, with regard to reducing the intubation time, the best choice was videostylet, followed by a direct laryngoscope, channeled videolaryngoscope, and standard videolaryngoscope, respectively. Direct laryngoscope showed the lowest incidence of malposition but required external manipulation the most. Channeled videolaryngoscope showed the highest incidence of oral mucosal damage, but showed the lower incidence of sore throat than standard videolaryngoscope or direct laryngoscope.ConclusionMost videoscopes improved the success rate of double-lumen tube intubation; however, they were time-consuming (except videostylet) and had a higher malposition rate than the direct laryngoscope.

Dataset Information

A randomized comparison between the VivaSight double-lumen tube and standard double-lumen tube intubation in thoracic surgery patients.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

A randomized comparison between the VivaSight double-lumen tube and standard double-lumen tube intubation in thoracic surgery patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets