European journal of anaesthesiology · 2019
Glottic visibility for laryngeal surgery: Tritube vs. microlaryngeal tube: A randomised controlled trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Schmidt Johannes, Günther Franziska, Weber Jonas, Kehm Vadim, Pfeiffer Jens, Becker Christoph, Wenzel Christin, Borgmann Silke, Wirth Steffen, Schumann Stefan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Good visibility is essential for successful laryngeal surgery. A Tritube with outer diameter 4.4 mm, combined with flow-controlled ventilation (FCV), enables ventilation by active expiration with a sealed trachea and may improve laryngeal visibility.
OBJECTIVES: We hypothesised that a Tritube with FCV would provide better laryngeal visibility and surgical conditions for laryngeal surgery than a conventional microlaryngeal tube (MLT) with volume-controlled ventilation (VCV).
DESIGN: Randomised, controlled trial.
SETTING: University Medical Centre.
PATIENTS: A total of 55 consecutive patients (>18 years) undergoing elective laryngeal surgery were assessed for participation, providing 40 evaluable data sets with 20 per group.
INTERVENTIONS: Random allocation to intubation with Tritube and ventilation with FCV (Tritube-FCV group) or intubation with MLT 6.0 and ventilation with VCV (MLT-VCV) as control. Tidal volumes of 7 ml kg predicted body weight, and positive end-expiratory pressure of 7 cmH2O were standardised between groups.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary endpoint was the tube-related concealment of laryngeal structures, measured on videolaryngoscopic photographs by appropriate software. Secondary endpoints were surgical conditions (categorical four-point rating scale), respiratory variables and change of end-expiratory lung volume from atmospheric airway pressure to ventilation with positive end-expiratory pressure. Data are presented as median [IQR].
RESULTS: There was less concealment of laryngeal structures with the Tritube than with the MLT; 7 [6 to 9] vs. 22 [18 to 27] %, (P < 0.001). Surgical conditions were rated comparably (P = 0.06). A subgroup of residents in training perceived surgical conditions to be better with the Tritube compared with the MLT (P = 0.006). Respiratory system compliance with the Tritube was higher at 61 [52 to 71] vs. 46 [41 to 51] ml cmH2O (P < 0.001), plateau pressure was lower at 14 [13 to 15] vs. 17 [16 to 18] cmH2O (P < 0.001), and change of end-expiratory lung volume was higher at 681 [463 to 849] vs. 414 [194 to 604] ml, (P = 0.023) for Tritube-FCV compared with MLT-VCV.
CONCLUSION: During laryngeal surgery a Tritube improves visibility of the surgical site but not surgical conditions when compared with a MLT 6.0. FCV improves lung aeration and respiratory system compliance compared with VCV.
TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER: DRKS00013097.
OBJECTIVES: We hypothesised that a Tritube with FCV would provide better laryngeal visibility and surgical conditions for laryngeal surgery than a conventional microlaryngeal tube (MLT) with volume-controlled ventilation (VCV).
DESIGN: Randomised, controlled trial.
SETTING: University Medical Centre.
PATIENTS: A total of 55 consecutive patients (>18 years) undergoing elective laryngeal surgery were assessed for participation, providing 40 evaluable data sets with 20 per group.
INTERVENTIONS: Random allocation to intubation with Tritube and ventilation with FCV (Tritube-FCV group) or intubation with MLT 6.0 and ventilation with VCV (MLT-VCV) as control. Tidal volumes of 7 ml kg predicted body weight, and positive end-expiratory pressure of 7 cmH2O were standardised between groups.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary endpoint was the tube-related concealment of laryngeal structures, measured on videolaryngoscopic photographs by appropriate software. Secondary endpoints were surgical conditions (categorical four-point rating scale), respiratory variables and change of end-expiratory lung volume from atmospheric airway pressure to ventilation with positive end-expiratory pressure. Data are presented as median [IQR].
RESULTS: There was less concealment of laryngeal structures with the Tritube than with the MLT; 7 [6 to 9] vs. 22 [18 to 27] %, (P < 0.001). Surgical conditions were rated comparably (P = 0.06). A subgroup of residents in training perceived surgical conditions to be better with the Tritube compared with the MLT (P = 0.006). Respiratory system compliance with the Tritube was higher at 61 [52 to 71] vs. 46 [41 to 51] ml cmH2O (P < 0.001), plateau pressure was lower at 14 [13 to 15] vs. 17 [16 to 18] cmH2O (P < 0.001), and change of end-expiratory lung volume was higher at 681 [463 to 849] vs. 414 [194 to 604] ml, (P = 0.023) for Tritube-FCV compared with MLT-VCV.
CONCLUSION: During laryngeal surgery a Tritube improves visibility of the surgical site but not surgical conditions when compared with a MLT 6.0. FCV improves lung aeration and respiratory system compliance compared with VCV.
TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER: DRKS00013097.