Comparison of double-lumen endobronchial tube and endobronchial blocker applications in one-lung ventilation Tek akciʇer ventilasyonunda çift lümenli endobronşiyal tüp ile endobronşiyal bloker uygulamasinin karşilaştirilmasi

EKSERT S., ÖZKAN G., Ince M. E., YILDIRIM V., Purtuloʇlu T., Yanarateş Ö., ...Daha Fazla

Gogus-Kalp-Damar Anestezi ve Yogun Bakim Dernegi Dergisi, cilt.21, sa.1, ss.23-29, 2015 (Scopus)

Özet

Objective: Double-lumen endobronchial tubes and bronchial blockers are often used in one-lung ventilation. In this study, ice aimed to determine the advantages or disadvantages of bronchial blockers relative to double-lumen endo-. bronchial tubes and to demonstrate that bronchial blockers are an alternative or a more appropriate tool for maintaining the patency of airtvay than double-lumen endobronchial tithes iit one-lung ventilation. To this end, in a prospective, randomized clinical trial we studied 80 ASA physical status I-II patients scheduled for one lung ventilation. Material and Methods: Patients were randomized into four groups as left (n= 20), and right double-lumen endobronchial tube (n=20), left (n=20), and right bronchial blocker' (n=20) groups. The time required for double-lumen endobronchial tube and bronchial blocker placed by fiberoptic' bronchoscopy, determination of malpositions (if any) of double-lumen endobronchial tube or bronchial blocker by fiberoptic bronchoscopy in the lateral' decubitus position, and during the operation, evaluation of lung collapse by the surgeon, postoperative sore throat/swallowing difficulties were identified. Results: The lime required for the placement of double-lit-' men endobronchial tube group (7.53±2.41 min) was longer than bronchial blocker group (5.50±2.63 min) (p <0.05). Time spent for the placement of the left (7.02 min), and right (8.05 min) double-lumen endobronchial tubes, left 6.70 min, and right (5.92 min) bronchial blockers were recorded. In intergroup comparisons statistically significant differences were found between right double-lumen endobronchial tube and right bronchial blocker (p=0.003) groups and between right double-lumen endobronchial tube and left bronchial blocker groups (p=0.03). There ivas lio significant difference betiveen groups in ternis of lung collapse, malposition of endobronchial tubes, and bronchial blockers, surgical exposure and postoperative sore throat/ swallowing difficulties. Both double-lumen endobronchial tube and bronchial blocker used in thoracic surgery provides effective lying ventilation. Conclusion: As a result, bronchial blockers placed with: the aid of fiberoptic bronchoscopy in order to provide one-lung ventilation do not differ from double-lumen endobronchial tubes in terms of malposition, lung collapse capabilities and postoperative sore throutlswallowing difficulties, however bronchial blockers have shorter insertion times than double-lumen endobronchial tubes. So toe think that bronchial blockers are good alternatives of double-lumen endobronchial tubes.