Is there a better right-sided tube for one-lung ventilation? A comparison of the right-sided double-lumen tube with the single-lumen tube with right-sided enclosed bronchial blocker

Comparison of Time to Intubation of a Double-Lumen Endobronchial Tube Utilizing C-MAC® Versus GlideScope® Versus Macintosh Blade: A Randomized Crossover Manikin Study

BACKGROUND

Macintosh blade direct laryngoscopy is widely used for endotracheal intubation. It may, however, provide an incomplete view of the glottis in patients with challenging airway anatomy. Consequently, various video laryngoscopes have been developed to enhance the visualization of the glottis and facilitate intubation. Yet, the effectiveness of these video laryngoscopes for intubation using a double-lumen endotracheal tube (DLT), which is longer, larger, and more rigid and has a linear configuration as opposed to the naturally semicircular curvature of a single-lumen endotracheal tube, remains uncertain. We hypothesized that video laryngoscopes would be more efficient for DLT intubation compared to the Macintosh blade in an adult manikin.

METHODS

Ninety-four anesthesia providers, comprising 67 residents, 15 fellows, and 12 attendings, attempted to intubate an adult manikin with normal airway anatomy (Laerdal, Wappingers Falls, NY, USA) using a 37 Fr left-sided DLT. Three different intubation devices were used: the C-MAC® video laryngoscope (Karl Storz GmbH & Co. KG, Tuttlingen, Germany), the GlideScope® video laryngoscope (Verathon Inc., Bothell, WA), and the Macintosh blade direct laryngoscope-were used. Each participant intubated a manikin once with each of the three devices. Participants were randomized via a crossover design with the order of devices determined by using a Latin square design. Time to intubation and the number of failed intubations (esophageal intubation) were compared across the three different devices.

RESULTS

Mean times to intubation for the C-MAC®, GlideScope®, and Macintosh blades were 18.57 ± 0.77, 36.26 ± 2.69, and 20.76 ± 0.96 seconds, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference (P<0.001) between the GlideScope® and the other two laryngoscopes. The times for C-MAC® and Macintosh blades were not significantly different. There were two instances of first-attempt failed intubation with the Macintosh.

CONCLUSION

Both the C-MAC® and the Macintosh blades proved more efficient in terms of time to DLT intubation in the manikin with normal airway anatomy, when compared to the GlideScope®. Considering the occurrence of first-attempt failed intubation, the C-MAC® was the most effective device among the three laryngoscopes for timely successful DLT intubation in the adult manikin. Further studies are needed to confirm these results in human subjects.

Comparison of Arndt-endobronchial blocker plus laryngeal mask airway with left-sided double-lumen endobronchial tube in one-lung ventilation in thoracic surgery in the morbidly obese

This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and performance of Arndt-endobronchial blocker (Arndt) combined with laryngeal mask airway (LMA) compared with left-sided double-lumen endobronchial tube (L-DLT) in morbidly obese patients in one-lung ventilation (OLV). In a prospective, randomized double-blind controlled clinical trial, 80 morbidly obese patients (ASA I-III, aged 20-70) undergoing general anesthesia for elective thoracic surgeries were randomly allocated into groups Arndt (n=40) and L-DLT (n=40). In group Arndt, a LMA™ Proseal was placed followed by an Arndt-endobronchial blocker. In group L-DLT, patients were intubated with a left-sided double-lumen endotracheal tube. Primary endpoints were the airway establishment, ease of insertion, oxygenation, lung collapse and surgical field exposure. Results showed similar ease of airway establishment and tube/device insertion between the two groups. Oxygen arterial pressure (PaO2) of patients in the Arndt group was significantly higher than L-DLT (154±46 vs 105±52 mmHg; P<0.05). Quality of lung collapse and surgical field exposure in the Arndt group was significantly better than L-DLT (effective rate 100 vs 90%; P<0.05). Duration of surgery and anesthesia were significantly shorter in the Arndt group (2.4±1.7 vs 3.1±1.8 and 2.8±1.9 vs 3.8±1.8 h, respectively; P<0.05). Incidence of hoarseness of voice and incidence and severity of throat pain at the post-anesthesia care unit and 12, 24, 48, and 72 h after surgery were significantly lower in the Arndt group (P<0.05). Findings suggested that Arndt-endobronchial blocker combined with LMA can serve as a promising alternative for morbidly obese patients in OLV in thoracic surgery.

A simple blind placement of the left-sided double-lumen tubes

One-lung ventilation (OLV) has been commonly provided by using a double-lumen tube (DLT). Previous reports have indicated the high incidence of inappropriate DLT positioning in conventional maneuvers.After obtaining approval from the medical ethics committee of First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University and written consent from patients, 88 adult patients belonging to American society of anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status grade I or II, and undergoing elective thoracic surgery requiring a left-side DLT for OLV were enrolled in this prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled study. Patients were randomly allocated to 1 of 2 groups: simple maneuver group or conventional maneuver group. The simple maneuver is a method that relies on partially inflating the bronchial balloon and recreating the effect of a carinal hook on the DLTs to give an idea of orientation and depth. After the induction of anesthesia the patients were intubated with a left-sided Robertshaw DLT using one of the 2 intubation techniques. After intubation of each DLT, an anesthesiologist used flexible bronchoscopy to evaluate the patient while the patient lay in a supine position. The number of optimal position and the time required to place DLT in correct position were recorded.Time for the intubation of DLT took 100 ± 16.2 seconds (mean ± SD) in simple maneuver group and 95.1 ± 20.8 seconds in conventional maneuver group. The difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.221). Time for fiberoptic bronchoscope (FOB) took 22 ± 4.8 seconds in simple maneuver group and was statistically faster than that in conventional maneuver group (43.6 ± 23.7 seconds, P < 0.001). Nearly 98% of the 44 intubations in simple maneuver group were considered as in optimal position while only 52% of the 44 intubations in conventional maneuver group were in optimal position, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001).This simple maneuver is more rapid and more accurate to position left-sided DLTs, it may be substituted for FOB during positioning of a left-sided DLT in condition that FOB is unavailable or inapplicable.