[RETRACTED ARTICLE] Comparison of Arndt-endobronchial blocker plus laryngeal mask airway with left-sided double-lumen endobronchial tube in one-lung ventilation in thoracic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.

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.

One-lung ventilation with pediatric Arndt endobronchial blocker in an adult patient with tracheal stenosis: A case report

In thoracic surgery, functional isolation of the lungs can be accomplished by several methods. However, for patients with tracheal stenosis, only limited choices are available to achieve one-lung ventilation (OLV) because of the difficulties posed by the stenotic trachea. In our patient, the narrowest site in the trachea was as small as 9.3 mm in diameter, and therefore a 28 Fr double-lumen endotracheal tube (DLT) or a Univent tube (inner diameter [ID] 6.0 mm) could not be inserted into the trachea. Recently, 7 and 9 Fr Arndt endobronchial blockers (AEB) used in adults could not even be used in our patient. Here we report a case of successful OLV that was performed using a pediatric wire-guided AEB and a small diameter single lumen endotracheal tube (SLT). We believe that this pediatric AEB is a safer and more effective option for achieving OLV in adult patients with tracheal stenosis.