Title
Author
DOI
Article Type
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
One lung ventilation: double-lumen tube with vs. without carinal hook
1Clinical Department of Anaesthesiology and Surgical Intensive Therapy, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Slovenia
*Corresponding Author(s): IZTOK POTOČNIK E-mail: iztok.potocnik@kclj.si
Background. One lung ventilation (OLV) has become a standard procedure for the vast majority of interventions in pulmonary surgery. The most commonly used are left sided double-lumen tubes (DLTs) which are placed into the left main bronchus and the right or left lung can be isolated.
The aim of our study was to compare DLTs with and without a hook.
Materials and methods. Fifty-four patients undergoing lung resection were included in the randomized, controlled, single-blinded study. Recruited patients were randomly al-located to each group (hook/without hook). Demographic data, procedural data, type of tube used, and difficult intubation criteria were recorded. Complications, according to intubation and position of the tube, were also recorded. After the operation, we aske patients about a sore throat, hoarseness, haemoptysis and their satisfaction with the procedure.
Results. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups. Time to place DLT was shorter in the group without a hook (47.7±45.5 vs 15.8±15.1s; P=0.01). The incidence of adequate positioning at the first attempt was higher in the group with a hook and the repositioning rate was high-er in the group without a hook (22.22 vs 59.25%; P=0.004). Patients in both groups suffered similar incidences of hoarseness, sore throat or postoperative haemoptysis (5/5/1 vs 3/3/0; P = 0.44). Patient satisfaction was higher in the group without a hook (31.85% vs 34.81%;0.03).
Conclusion. The study showed the advan-tage of DLTs without a hook in comparison with DLTs with a hook. In our institution we decided to use DLTs without a hook, with fiberoptic control.
double-lumen tube, carinal hook, pulmonary surgery
IZTOK POTOČNIK,LEA ANDJELKOVIĆ,JASMINA MARKOVIČ-BOŽIČ. One lung ventilation: double-lumen tube with vs. without carinal hook. Signa Vitae. 2018. 14(1);27-29.
1. Clayton-Smith A, Bennett K, Alston RP, Adams G, Brown G, Hawthorne T, et al. A Comparison of the Efficacy and Adverse Effects of Double-Lumen Endobronchial Tubes and Bronchial Blockers in Thoracic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2015;29:955-66.
2. Campos JH. Lung isolation techniques. Anesthesiol Clin North America 2001 Sept; 19(3):455-74.
3. Pedoto A. How to choose the double-lumen tube size and side: the eternal debate. Anesthesiol Clin 2012 Dec; 30(4):671-81.
4. Carlens E. A new flexible double-lumen catheter for bronchospirometry. J Thorac Surg 1949;18:742-6.
5. Bauer C, Winter C, Hentz JG, Ducrocq X, Steib A, Dupeyron JP. Bronchial blocker compared to double lumen tubes for one- lung ventilation during thoracoscopy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scandi 2001;45:250-4.
6. Campos JH, Hallam EA, Van Natta T, Kernstine KH. Devices for lung isolation used by anesthesiologists with limited experience: comparison of double-lumen endotracheal tube, Univent torque blocker, and Arndt wire guided endotracheal blocker. Anesthesiol-ogy 2006;104:261-6.
7. Oberhofer D, Majerić-Kogler V. Comparison between the rubber Carlens tube and the polyvinylchloride Robertshaw tube for endo-bronchial intubation. Lijec vjesn 1999 Nov-Dec;121(11-12):345-51.
8. Klein U, Karzai W, Bloos F, Wohlfarth M, Gottschall R, Fritz H, et al. Role of fiberoptic bronchoscopy in conjunction with the use of double-lumen tubes for thoracic anesthesia: a prospective study. Anesthesiology 1998 Feb;88(2):346-50.
9. Slinger PD. Fiberoptic bronchoscopic positioning of double-lumen tubes. J Cardiothorac Anesth 1989 Aug;3(4):486-96.
10. Brodsky JB. Fiberoptic bronchoscopy need not be a routine part of double-lumen tube placement. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2004 Feb;17(1):7-11.
11. Cohen E. Double-lumen tube position should be confirmed by fiberoptic bronchoscopy. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2004 Feb;17(1):1-6.
12. Narayanaswamy M, McRae K, Slinger P, Dugas G, Kanellakos GW, Roscoe A, Lacroix M. Choosing a lung isolation device for tho-racic surgery: a randomized trial of three bronchial blockers versus double-lumen tubes. Anesth Analg 2009 Apr;108(4):1097-101
13. Fitzmaurice BG, Brodsky JB. Airway rupture from double lumen tubes. J Cardiothoracic Vasc Anesth 1999;13:322-9.
14. Potocnik I, Kupsch A, Novak-Jankovic V. Iatrogenic rupture of the trachea caused by double Lumen tube intubation. Cent Eur J Med 2010;5:737.
15. Dumans-Nizard V, Parquin JF, Moyer JD, Dreyfus JF, Fischler M, Le Guen M. Left double-lumen tube with or without a carinal hook. A randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2015;32:418-24.
16. Novak-Jankovic V. Standardni operativni postopki (SOP) v anesteziologiji, reanimatologiji in perioperativni intenzivni medicini. Ljubljana: Univerzitetni klinični center, Klinični oddelek za anesteziologijo in intenzivno terapijo operativnih strok, Kirurška klinika, 2009.
17. Mourisee J, Liesveld J, Verhagen A, Van Rooij G, Van der Heide S, Schuurbiers-Siebers O, Van der Heijden E. Efficiency, efficassy, and safety of EZ-blocker compared with left-sided double-lumen tube for one-lung ventilation. Anesthesiology 2013;118:550-61.
Top