Next article Search Articles Instructions for authors  Access Statistics | Citation Manager  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2030    
    Printed28    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded301    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

Intubation with vivasight double-lumen tube versus conventional double-lumen tube in adult patients undergoing lung resection: A retrospective analysis


1 Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, University General Hospital Consortium of Valencia; University of Valencia, Spain
2 Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Città della Salute e della Scienza, Torino, Italy
3 Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, University General Hospital Consortium of Valencia, Spain
4 University of Valencia; Department of Thoracic Surgery, University General Hospital Consortium of Valencia, Spain

Correspondence Address:
Giulia Petrini
Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Cardinal Massaia Hospital, Asti Italy Corso Dante Alighieri, 202, 14100 Asti
Italy
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/aca.aca_43_21

Rights and Permissions

Year : 2022  |  Volume : 25  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 279-285

 

SEARCH
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles

  Article in PDF (673 KB)
Email article
Print Article
Add to My List
Objectives: The present study was designed to compare outcomes in patients undergoing thoracic surgery using the VivaSight double-lumen tube (VDLT) or the conventional double-lumen tube (cDLT). Design: A retrospective analysis of 100 patients scheduled for lung resection recruited over 21 consecutive months (January 2018–September 2019). Setting: Single-center university teaching hospital investigation. Participants: A randomized sample of 100 patients who underwent lung resection during this period were selected for the purpose to compare 50 patients in the VDLT group and 50 in the cDLT group. Interventions: After institutional review board approval, patients were chosen according to inclusion and exclusion criteria and we created a general database. The 100 patients have been chosen through a random process with the Microsoft Excel program (Microsoft 2018, Version 16.16.16). Measurements and Main Results: The primary endpoint of the study was to analyze the need to use fiberoptic bronchoscopy to confirm the correct positioning of VDLT or the cDLT used for lung isolation. Secondary endpoints were respiratory parameters, admission to the intensive care unit, length of hospitalization, postoperative complications, readmission, and 30-day mortality rate. The use of fiberoptic bronchoscopy was lower in the VDLT group, and the size of the tube was smaller. The intraoperative respiratory and hemodynamics parameters were optimal. There were no other preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative differences between both groups. Conclusions: The VDLT reduces the need for fiberoptic bronchoscopy, and it seems that a smaller size is needed. Finally, VDLT is cost-effective using disposable fiberscopes.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
 

 

 

 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 
 
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
  *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 
 ORIGINAL ARTICLE
 




1 Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, University General Hospital Consortium of Valencia; University of Valencia, Spain
2 Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Città della Salute e della Scienza, Torino, Italy
3 Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, University General Hospital Consortium of Valencia, Spain
4 University of Valencia; Department of Thoracic Surgery, University General Hospital Consortium of Valencia, Spain

Correspondence Address:
Giulia Petrini
Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Cardinal Massaia Hospital, Asti Italy Corso Dante Alighieri, 202, 14100 Asti
Italy
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/aca.aca_43_21

Rights and Permissions

Objectives: The present study was designed to compare outcomes in patients undergoing thoracic surgery using the VivaSight double-lumen tube (VDLT) or the conventional double-lumen tube (cDLT). Design: A retrospective analysis of 100 patients scheduled for lung resection recruited over 21 consecutive months (January 2018–September 2019). Setting: Single-center university teaching hospital investigation. Participants: A randomized sample of 100 patients who underwent lung resection during this period were selected for the purpose to compare 50 patients in the VDLT group and 50 in the cDLT group. Interventions: After institutional review board approval, patients were chosen according to inclusion and exclusion criteria and we created a general database. The 100 patients have been chosen through a random process with the Microsoft Excel program (Microsoft 2018, Version 16.16.16). Measurements and Main Results: The primary endpoint of the study was to analyze the need to use fiberoptic bronchoscopy to confirm the correct positioning of VDLT or the cDLT used for lung isolation. Secondary endpoints were respiratory parameters, admission to the intensive care unit, length of hospitalization, postoperative complications, readmission, and 30-day mortality rate. The use of fiberoptic bronchoscopy was lower in the VDLT group, and the size of the tube was smaller. The intraoperative respiratory and hemodynamics parameters were optimal. There were no other preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative differences between both groups. Conclusions: The VDLT reduces the need for fiberoptic bronchoscopy, and it seems that a smaller size is needed. Finally, VDLT is cost-effective using disposable fiberscopes.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*


        
Print this article     Email this article