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: The study was registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov registry, ID: NCT04101734.

Substantial efforts have been undertaken to identify and minimise factors responsible for the development of ventilator-induced lung injury. A novel approach to this problem addresses energy dissipated in lung tissue during the breathing cycle as one of the key problems. Flow-controlled ventilation is a new modality of mechanical ventilation based on a constant flow during both inspiration and expiration. This review aims to evaluate the current evidence available regarding flow-controlled ventilation. Lastly, three cases of flow-controlled ventilation application are presented: ventilation with a small lumen tube during tracheal resection, one-lung ventilation during thoracoscopic lobectomy, and ventilation of a critically ill patient with acute respiratory distress syndrome in an intensive care unit setting.

One-lung ventilation is also used in some thoracic or cardiac surgery, vascular surgery and oesophageal procedures. We conducted a search of the literature for relevant studies in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Library. The final literature search was performed on 10 December 2022. Primary outcomes included the quality of lung collapse. Secondary outcome measures included: the success of the first intubation attempt, malposition rate, time for device placement, lung collapse and adverse events occurrence. Twenty-five studies with 1636 patients were included. Excellent lung collapse among DLT and BB groups was 72.4% vs. 73.4%, respectively (OR = 1.20; 95%CI: 0.84 to 1.72; p = 0.31). The malposition rate was 25.3% vs. 31.9%, respectively (OR = 0.66; 95%CI: 0.49 to 0.88; p = 0.004). The use of DLT compared to BB was associated with a higher risk of hypoxemia (13.5% vs. 6.0%, respectively; OR = 2.27; 95%CI: 1.14 to 4.49; p = 0.02), hoarseness (25.2% vs. 13.0%; OR = 2.30; 95%CI: 1.39 to 3.82; p = 0.001), sore throat (40.3% vs. 23.3%; OR = 2.30; 95%CI: 1.68 to 3.14; p < 0.001), and bronchus/carina injuries (23.2% vs. 8.4%; OR = 3.45; 95%CI: 1.43 to 8.31; p = 0.006). The studies conducted so far on comparing DLT and BB are ambiguous. In the DLT compared to the BB group, the malposition rate was statistically significantly lower, and time to tube placement and lung collapse was shorter. However, the use of DLT compared to BB can be associated with a higher risk of hypoxemia, hoarseness, sore throat and bronchus/carina injuries. Multicenter randomized trials on larger groups of patients are needed to draw definitive conclusions regarding the superiority of any of these devices.

Background: Chest surgery is associated with significant pain, and potent opioid medications are the primary medications used for pain relief. Opioid-free anaesthesia (OFA) combined with regional anaesthesia is promoted as an alternative in patients with an opioid contraindication. Methods: Objective: To assess the efficacy of OFA combined with a paravertebral block in pain treatment during video-assisted thoracic surgery. Design: A randomized, open-label study. Setting: A single university hospital between December 2015 and March 2018. Participants: Sixty-six patients scheduled for elective video-assisted thoracic surgery were randomized into two groups. Of these, 16 were subsequently excluded from the analysis. Interventions: OFA combined with a paravertebral block with 0.5% bupivacaine in the OFA group; typical general anaesthesia with opioids in the control group. Main outcome measures: Intraoperative nociceptive intensity measured with a skin conductance algesimeter (SCA) and traditional intraoperative monitoring. Results: Higher mean blood pressure was observed in the control group before induction and during intubation (p = 0.0189 and p = 0.0095). During chest opening and pleural drainage, higher SCA indications were obtained in the control group (p = 0.0036 and p = 0.0253), while in the OFA group, the SCA values were higher during intubation (p = 0.0325). SCA during surgery showed more stable values in the OFA group. Pearson analysis revealed a positive correlation between the SCA indications and mean blood pressure in both groups. Conclusions: OFA combined with a paravertebral block provides effective nociception control during video-assisted thoracic surgery and can be an alternative for general anaesthesia with opioids. OFA provides a stable nociception response during general anaesthesia, as measured by SCA.

No abstract