Comparison of EZ blocker and left double-lumen endotracheal tube for one lung ventilation in minimally invasive cardiac surgery

Left-Sided Double-Lumen Tube vs EZ-Blocker for One-Lung Ventilation in Thoracic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background. The EZ-Blocker is the newest generation of bronchial blocker and offers a potential alternative to left-sided double lumen tubes for lung isolation and one-lung ventilation during thoracic surgery. Methods. Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing left-sided double lumen tube to the EZ-Blocker for one-lung ventilation during thoracic surgery. The time for placement, incidence of intraoperative displacement, and surgeons' rating of lung collapse quality were designated as coprimary outcomes. The safety profiles of the two devices, including the incidence of airway trauma and post-extubation discomfort were also examined. Results. Six randomized controlled trials (495 patients) were analyzed. Compared to the EZ-Blocker, the left-sided double lumen tube was faster to place by a weighted mean difference of [95% CI] of -61.24 seconds [-102.48, -20.00] (P = .004) and was much less likely to become displaced during lung isolation with an odds ratio [95% CI] of .56 [.34, .91] (P = .02). The left-sided double lumen tube and the EZ-Blocker provided similar surgeon-rated quality of lung isolation. Although the left-sided double lumen tube caused a greater degree of post-extubation sore throat, there was a similar incidence of carinal trauma and post-extubation hoarseness compared to the EZ-Blocker. Conclusion. Our analysis suggests that the left-sided double lumen tube can be placed more quickly and is less prone to intraoperative displacement compared to the EZ-Blocker; the quality of lung collapse is similar. Thus, evidence appears to support the continued utilization of the left-sided double lumen tube for routine thoracic surgery requiring one-lung ventilation.

Comparison of the effect of double-lumen endotracheal tubes and bronchial blockers on lung collapse in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

This meta-analysis compared the quality of lung collapse and the resultant adverse reactions between the use of double-lumen endotracheal tubes (DLT) and bronchial blockers (BB) in minimally invasive thoracic surgery.

Methods

A search was performed in five bibliographic databases, namely PubMed, Springer, Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library ignoring the original language, which identified five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published on or before December 31, 2021. These studies were subsequently analyzed. All included studies compared the efficacy and safety of DLT and BB as a lung isolation technique in surgery. The methodological quality of each study was assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool. The quality of lung collapse and the malposition rate were adopted as the main outcome indicators. Alternatively, the intubation time and the incidence of postoperative sore throat were adopted as secondary indicators.

Results

When either DLT or BB were utilized in minimally invasive thoracic surgery, no differences were observed in the quality of lung collapse (odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 1.58), the intubation time (mean difference [MD], 0.06; 95% CI, -1.02 to 1.14), or the malposition rate (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.37 to 2.06). However, the incidence of postoperative sore throat among patients treated with BB was significantly lower than that among patients treated with DLT (OR, 5.25; 95% CI, 2.55 to 10.75).

Conclusion

When utilized in minimally invasive thoracic surgery, the quality of lung collapse with DLT was identical to that with BB. However, patients treated with the latter demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of postoperative sore throat.