BMC anesthesiology · 2022
Comparisons of the segments of left-sided double-lumen tracheobronchial tubes as industrial products.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Wajima Zen'ichiro, Shiga Toshiya, Imanaga Kazuyuki
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Although there are at least seven manufacturers producing left-sided double-lumen tubes (DLTs), there have been few reports comparing the segments of these DLTs. In this study, we compared various segments of left-sided DLTs further.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined five manufacturers' left-sided DLTs: Mallinckrodt, Portex, Rüsch, Sheridan, and Daiken-medical. We conducted the following six trials or measurements, and three supplemental trials or measurements: First, we tried to pass various sizes of steel balls down each lumen in order from the smallest (3 mm) to largest (4.5 mm). If the ball passed on the first attempt, we tried just once; otherwise, we made a second attempt. Second, we measured the external diameter of tracheal and bronchial cuff using a profile projector. Third, we measured the length of the cuff and tip of the bronchial segment of the tubes using the profile projector. Fourth, we measured various lengths of the tubes. Fifth, we measured the external diameter of both lumens and the tubules for tracheal and bronchial cuff inflation. Finally, we measured various cross-sectional areas including the tracheal lumen, bronchial lumen, and tubules for cuff inflation. We also conducted three supplemental studies. First, we measured air volume in the cuff when intracuff pressure equaled 2 or 3 kPa. Second, we defined the configuration of the tracheal and bronchial cuffs. Third, we defined the presence or absence of bevels and also measured the angle of the bevels using the profile projector.
RESULTS: We performed nine trials and measurements and found large disparities between each manufacturer's tubes.
CONCLUSIONS: The large disparities found between the measurements of the five manufacturers' tubes may be due to different lots or changes in specifications made by each manufacturer. We found tubes exhibiting lower quality, such as deformations, and non-universal and inconsistent sizing, in the comparison of the manufacturers' tubes. Practitioners should be aware of the features and aspects of these tubes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined five manufacturers' left-sided DLTs: Mallinckrodt, Portex, Rüsch, Sheridan, and Daiken-medical. We conducted the following six trials or measurements, and three supplemental trials or measurements: First, we tried to pass various sizes of steel balls down each lumen in order from the smallest (3 mm) to largest (4.5 mm). If the ball passed on the first attempt, we tried just once; otherwise, we made a second attempt. Second, we measured the external diameter of tracheal and bronchial cuff using a profile projector. Third, we measured the length of the cuff and tip of the bronchial segment of the tubes using the profile projector. Fourth, we measured various lengths of the tubes. Fifth, we measured the external diameter of both lumens and the tubules for tracheal and bronchial cuff inflation. Finally, we measured various cross-sectional areas including the tracheal lumen, bronchial lumen, and tubules for cuff inflation. We also conducted three supplemental studies. First, we measured air volume in the cuff when intracuff pressure equaled 2 or 3 kPa. Second, we defined the configuration of the tracheal and bronchial cuffs. Third, we defined the presence or absence of bevels and also measured the angle of the bevels using the profile projector.
RESULTS: We performed nine trials and measurements and found large disparities between each manufacturer's tubes.
CONCLUSIONS: The large disparities found between the measurements of the five manufacturers' tubes may be due to different lots or changes in specifications made by each manufacturer. We found tubes exhibiting lower quality, such as deformations, and non-universal and inconsistent sizing, in the comparison of the manufacturers' tubes. Practitioners should be aware of the features and aspects of these tubes.