Background: Double-lumen tubes (DLTs) or bronchial blockers are commonly used for one-lung ventilation. DLTs are sometimes difficult or even impossible to introduce, and the incidence of postoperative hoarseness and airway injuries is higher. Bronchial blockers are more difficult to position and need more frequent intraoperative repositioning. The design of a Y-shaped bronchial blocker, the EZ-Blocker (Teleflex Life Sciences Ltd., Athlone, Ireland) (EZB), combines some advantages of both techniques. The objective of this study was to assess whether EZB performs clinically better than left-sided DLTs (Broncho-cath; Mallinckrodt, Athlone, Ireland) without causing more injury. Primary outcome was the frequency of initial malpositions. Methods: Eligible patients were adults scheduled for surgery requiring one-lung ventilation who met criteria for placement of both devices. In this parallel trial, 100 consecutive and blinded patients were assigned randomly using a computer-generated list to two groups. The incidence of malposition and ease and time of placement were recorded. Blinded assessors investigated quality of lung deflation, postoperative complaints, and damage to the airway.Results: Placement of a DLT was unsuccessful twice. The incidence of initial malposition was high and comparable between EZBs (37 of 50) and DLTs (42 of 49) (P = 0.212). Placing single-lumen tubes and EZBs took more time but was rated easier. Quality of lung deflation was comparable. Fewer patients in the EZB group complained of sore throat at day 1. There was a higher incidence of tracheal hematoma and redness and bronchial hematoma in the DLT group. Conclusions:The EZB is an efficient and effective device for one-lung ventilation and causes less injury and sore throat than a DLT.
Introduction Pectus excavatum (PE) is the most common chest wall deformity. Patients with PE may have cosmetic complaints, restricted physical capabilities, or both and may seek surgical correction. One method to assess satisfaction after surgery is the single step questionnaire (SSQ). Although the developers state that the SSQ produces a stabile score and only needs to be used once, we hypothesized that the score may depend on point in time after surgery. Materials and Methods One hundred and eight patients from a longitudinal cohort of patients undergoing a Nuss bar placement for PE were selected. Mean age was 16.0 years (range: 12–29). SSQ was completed at 6 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. Mean and median scores per question and total scores were calculated on each measurement moment. Overall scores were tested using the Friedman test. Results There were significant differences in overall SSQ scores (p < 0.009) throughout the postoperative period, especially between 6 weeks and 6 months (p = 0.006). Scores on general health, exercise capacity, impact on social life, pain during hospital stay, and after discharge changed also significant in the first 2 years after Nuss bar placement. Conclusion There were significant differences in total SSQ score depending on the time of application postoperatively. However, the most clinical relevant difference was between 6 weeks and 6 months. Assessment of the overall satisfaction postoperative with the SSQ questionnaire should not be done with a single measurement but rather at different postoperative time intervals before and after 6 months postoperatively.
The patient population in desperate need for an airway substitute are individuals with long segment tracheal defects that are considered, technically, inoperable. Regardless of the underlying etiology, benign or malignant growing processes, this patient category enters a palliative setting or require tracheal transplantation. Different airway substitutes have been categorized by Grillo as follows; tracheal transplantation, autogenous tissue, non-viable tissue, tissue-engineering and foreign materials. These fields have been explored in the past in animal models and in clinical patients. Research on airway replacement has been exposed to a level of controversies in the past years. The field has been turbulent and apocryphal. In particular, the area of tissue-engineering using stem cells has suffered from a major set-back leaving scientists, clinicians and ethical committees skeptical. Recently, a hopeful study emerged using aortic allografts as tracheal substitutes in patients with airway defects. The initial results seem promising and reliable. The developments of the field at this point seem striking and hopeful. The focus of this review is to shed light on developments in the field of aortic allografts as substitute for tracheal replacement.
No abstract
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.