ABSTRACT
Background In thoracic surgeries requiring thoracotomy incisions, correct positioning of the double-lumen endotracheal tube (DLT) is mandatory. After the pandemic of novel COVID-19, using simple, noninvasive technology such as lung ultrasound (LUS) can be important in avoiding the possibility of spreading infectious diseases or contagious infections that can follow using fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB). Objectives We aimed to assess the accuracy of auscultation and LUS in relation to FOB in the assessment of DLT placement and to identify the possibility of using LUS as an alternative to FOB during DLT insertion. Methods This diagnostic accuracy study was conducted according to STARD guidelines;enrolled 120 cases requiring DLT intubation. After DLT insertion, all patients were examined by stethoscope, then by LUS for determination of DLT position, and then confirmed by FOB in the same patient. Results Three patients dropped out due to failed intubation, and only 117 cases were analyzed. Time was significantly longer for LUS than for auscultation and FOB and was insignificantly different between auscultation and FOB. Auscultation had 76.14% sensitivity, 34.48% specificity, and 65.81% accuracy in the determination of correct DLT placement. LUS had 92.05% sensitivity, 79.31% specificity, and 88.89% accuracy in detecting correct DLT placement. There was substantial agreement between LUS and FOB (κ = 0.705) and poor agreement between auscultation and FOB (κ = 0.104). Conclusions LUS can be used as a simple, noninvasive tool for detecting DLT placement with a substantial agreement with FOB.
ABSTRACT
Background: In thoracic surgeries requiring thoracotomy incisions, correct positioning of the double-lumen endotracheal tube (DLT) is mandatory. After the pandemic of novel COVID-19, using simple, noninvasive technology such as lung ultrasound (LUS) can be important in avoiding the possibility of spreading infectious diseases or contagious infections that can follow using fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB). Objectives: We aimed to assess the accuracy of auscultation and LUS in relation to FOB in the assessment of DLT placement and to identify the possibility of using LUS as an alternative to FOB during DLT insertion. Methods: This diagnostic accuracy study was conducted according to STARD guidelines; enrolled 120 cases requiring DLT intubation. After DLT insertion, all patients were examined by stethoscope, then by LUS for determination of DLT position, and then confirmed by FOB in the same patient. Results: Three patients dropped out due to failed intubation, and only 117 cases were analyzed. Time was significantly longer for LUS than for auscultation and FOB and was insignificantly different between auscultation and FOB. Auscultation had 76.14% sensitivity, 34.48% specificity, and 65.81% accuracy in the determination of correct DLT placement. LUS had 92.05% sensitivity, 79.31% specificity, and 88.89% accuracy in detecting correct DLT placement. There was substantial agreement between LUS and FOB (κ = 0.705) and poor agreement between auscultation and FOB (κ = 0.104). Conclusions: LUS can be used as a simple, noninvasive tool for detecting DLT placement with a substantial agreement with FOB.