An interventional study of double lumen tube with a hook and double lumen tube without a hook in Double Lumen Tube, sponsored by University Medical Centre Ljubljana. Status unknown at 1 site in Slovenia. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2017-04-17.
Sponsored by University Medical Centre Ljubljana · Not applicable, Interventional, and Other
One lung ventilation (OLV) has become a standard procedure for the vast majority of interventions in pulmonary surgery. It is used in both techniques: thoracotomy and videothoracoscopy (VATS).
OLV can be provided by double lumen tube (DLT) with or without the hook. In our study the investigators want to find out if there is any advantage with one or another.
One lung ventilation (OLV) has become a standard procedure for the vast majority of interventions in pulmonary surgery. It is used in both techniques: thoracotomy and videothoracoscopy (VATS)(1).
OLV can be provided by double lumen tube (DLT) or bronchial blocker. There are advantages and disadvantages of both techniques, but DLT is more recommended because it allows total emptying of the operated lung. Air and secretion can be aspirated through the wide lumen of the tube during the surgery (2, 3).
There are many kinds of DLT which differ according to shape and material. Most commonly used are left sided DLT which are placed into left main bronchus and right or left lungs can be closed or emptied. Left sided tube have a hook which is placed on the carina to prevent displacement of the tube. There are also DLT without the hook which are more gentle and easier to place in the left main bronchus (4,5). After the insertion of the left tube without the hook, bronchoscopy is recommended to check the position of the tube (6,7,8,9).
Some severe complications (injury of the bronchial tree) after insertion of the hooked tube are found in the literature (10). The investigators have published such complication from our experience (11).
Each anesthesiologist decides individually which kind of DLT to use as there are no studies which have objectivised the advantage of either technique. There is only one study where they have compared both techniques but they have found no difference. That is why the investigators decided to study which technique is better so this can be included in our standard operative procedure.
University Medical Centre Ljubljana is the lead sponsor of 284 studies on the registry; 71 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
The tube with the hook (after passing the bronchial cuff trough the vocal cords) was rotated for 180 degrees to the left and removed the stylet and when the hook passed the vocal cords, the tube was rotated for 90 degrees back to the right and push it into the bronchus. Following formula was used for the right depth (height (cm)/10 + 12 (cm)) of the tube without the hook. The tube with hook was inserted into the bronchus so that hook was placed on the carina and stopped.
Device: double lumen tube with a hook
Tube without the hook was inserted with the following technique: after the bronchial cuff was passed the vocal cords, the stylet was removed and the tube was rotated 90 st towards left.
Device: double lumen tube without a hook
The tube with the hook (after passing the bronchial cuff trough the vocal cords) was rotated for 180 degrees to the left and removed the stylet and when the hook passed the vocal cords, the tube was rotated for 90 degrees back to the right and push it into the bronchus. Following formula was used for the right depth (height (cm)/10 + 12 (cm)) of the tube without the hook. The tube with hook was inserted into the bronchus so that hook was placed on the carina and stopped.
Tube without the hook was inserted with the following technique: after the bronchial cuff was passed the vocal cords, the stylet was removed and the tube was rotated 90 st towards left.
intubation
The time needed for tube insertion (time from seeing the vocal cords to final position of the tube) was measured.
Time frame: intraoperative
This study is status unknown, as verified in Apr 2017. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
University Medical Centre Ljubljana