[RETRACTED ARTICLE] Comparison of Arndt-endobronchial blocker plus laryngeal mask airway with left-sided double-lumen endobronchial tube in one-lung ventilation in thoracic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 Comparative Study of Pericostal and Submuscular Bar Fixation Technique in the Nuss Procedure

We evaluated the safety and stability of the less-invasive submuscular bar fixation method in the Nuss procedure. One hundred and thirteen patients undergoing the Nuss procedure were divided into three groups according to the bar fixation technique employed. Group 1 consisted of 25 patients who had undergone bilateral pericostal bar fixation, group 2 consisted of 39 patients with unilateral pericostal one, and group 3 included 49 patients with bilateral submuscular one. The patients' age ranged from 2 to 25 yr, with an average of 7.2+/-5.67 yr. Bar dislocation occurred in 1 patient (4%) in Group 1, 2 patients (5.1%) in Group 2, and 1 patient (2.0%) in Group 3 (p=0.46). Hemothorax was noted in 2 patients (8%) in Group 1, 2 (5.1%) in Group 2, and none (0%) in Group 3 (Group 1 vs. Group 3, p=0.028). The mean operation time was shorter in Group 3 than Group 1 (50.1+/-21.00 in Group 3 vs. 67.2+/-33.07 min in Group 1, p=0.041). The submuscular bar fixation results in a decrease in technique-related complications and operation time and is associated with favorable results with regard to the prevention of bar dislodgement.