Department of Anesthesia and Pain Management, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, Canada.
Department of Anesthesia and Pain Management, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, Canada; Department of Anesthesia and Pain Management, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada.
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2023 Dec;37(12):2577-2583. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2023.08.125. Epub 2023 Aug 19.
To compare the quality of lung collapse, time, and number of attempts required to achieve lung isolation, and incidence of intraoperative malpositioning between the EZ blocker (EZB), Fuji Uniblocker (UB), and the left-sided double lumen tube (DLT).
Prospective, randomized clinical trial.
Single tertiary-level, university-affiliated hospital.
Eighty-nine patients undergoing elective open thoracotomies or video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery.
The 89 patients were randomized to receive a DLT, UB, or EZB for one-lung ventilation.
The quality of lung collapse at the time of pleural opening and 10 and 20 minutes thereafter were assessed by the surgeon using the Lung Collapse Score (LCS; 0 = no lung collapse to 10 = best lung collapse). The time and number of attempts required to achieve lung isolation and the number of repositions required during surgery were measured. Tracheobronchial tree measurements were performed by radiologists from preoperative computed tomography imaging. The surgeon remained blinded to the type of device used. Twenty-nine patients were randomized to the DLT group and 30 patients to each of the EZB and UB groups. The LCSs among the groups at pleural opening and 10 minutes after pleural opening were not significantly different (p = 0.34 and p = 0.08, respectively). However, at 20 minutes after the pleural opening, the LCSs were significantly different among groups (p = 0.02), with median scores being significantly lower for DLT (9 [IQR 8-9]) than for EZB (9 [IQR 9-10]; p = 0.04) and UB (9.5 [IQR 9-10]; p = 0.02). Lung isolation was achieved fastest in the DLT group (p < 0.01). The frequency of difficult placement did not significantly differ among groups, although it occurred most frequently in UB (n = 7; 23.3%). Intraoperative repositioning also occurred most often with the UB (n = 15; 50.0%). The EZB had the greatest number of cases requiring >2 repositions (n = 4, 13.3%). There were no differences between preoperative airway measurements and time to isolation or incidence of intraoperative repositioning among the groups.
The LCS was comparable among the 3 devices until 20 minutes after pleural opening, when better scores were obtained in the bronchial blocker groups. Lung isolation was achieved fastest with the DLT. The EZB had the highest incidence of cases requiring >2 intraoperative repositions, mostly occurring in R-sided surgery. For L-sided surgery, the EZB performed equally to the UB. This suggests that using the EZB for R-sided video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery may be suboptimal. Preoperative airway dimensions did not correlate with time to achieve isolation or incidence of intraoperative malpositioning.
比较 EZ 阻隔器(EZB)、富士 Uniblocker(UB)和左侧双腔管(DLT)在实现肺隔离、所需时间和尝试次数以及术中错位发生率方面的优劣。
前瞻性、随机临床试验。
单三级、大学附属医院。
89 例行择期开胸手术或电视辅助胸腔镜手术的患者。
89 名患者随机接受 DLT、UB 或 EZB 行单肺通气。
手术医生使用肺塌陷评分(LCS;0=无肺塌陷至 10=最佳肺塌陷)评估胸膜打开时和此后 10 分钟和 20 分钟的肺塌陷质量。测量实现肺隔离所需的时间和尝试次数以及手术期间需要重新定位的次数。放射科医生根据术前计算机断层扫描成像进行气管支气管树测量。手术医生对所用设备的类型保持盲态。29 名患者被随机分配至 DLT 组,30 名患者被随机分配至 EZB 组和 UB 组。胸膜打开时和胸膜打开后 10 分钟时各组的 LCS 无显著差异(p=0.34 和 p=0.08)。然而,胸膜打开后 20 分钟时,各组间的 LCS 有显著差异(p=0.02),DLT 的中位数评分明显低于 EZB(9 [IQR 8-9];p=0.04)和 UB(9.5 [IQR 9-10];p=0.02)。DLT 组最快实现肺隔离(p<0.01)。各组间困难放置的频率无显著差异,尽管 UB 组发生率最高(n=7;23.3%)。UB 组术中重新定位的发生率也最高(n=15;50.0%)。EZB 组需要重新定位>2 次的病例数最多(n=4;13.3%)。各组间术前气道测量值与隔离时间或术中重新定位发生率均无差异。
胸膜打开后 20 分钟前,3 种装置的 LCS 相似,此时支气管阻塞器组获得的评分更好。DLT 最快实现肺隔离。EZB 需要重新定位>2 次的发生率最高,主要发生在右侧手术中。对于左侧手术,EZB 的表现与 UB 相当。这表明,在右侧电视辅助胸腔镜手术中使用 EZB 可能不理想。术前气道尺寸与达到隔离所需时间或术中错位发生率无相关性。