Glottic visibility for laryngeal surgery: Tritube vs. microlaryngeal tube: A randomised controlled trial.


Journal

European journal of anaesthesiology
ISSN: 1365-2346
Titre abrégé: Eur J Anaesthesiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8411711

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
12 2019
Historique:
pubmed: 24 10 2019
medline: 14 7 2020
entrez: 24 10 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Good visibility is essential for successful laryngeal surgery. A Tritube with outer diameter 4.4 mm, combined with flow-controlled ventilation (FCV), enables ventilation by active expiration with a sealed trachea and may improve laryngeal visibility. We hypothesised that a Tritube with FCV would provide better laryngeal visibility and surgical conditions for laryngeal surgery than a conventional microlaryngeal tube (MLT) with volume-controlled ventilation (VCV). Randomised, controlled trial. University Medical Centre. A total of 55 consecutive patients (>18 years) undergoing elective laryngeal surgery were assessed for participation, providing 40 evaluable data sets with 20 per group. Random allocation to intubation with Tritube and ventilation with FCV (Tritube-FCV group) or intubation with MLT 6.0 and ventilation with VCV (MLT-VCV) as control. Tidal volumes of 7 ml kg predicted body weight, and positive end-expiratory pressure of 7 cmH2O were standardised between groups. Primary endpoint was the tube-related concealment of laryngeal structures, measured on videolaryngoscopic photographs by appropriate software. Secondary endpoints were surgical conditions (categorical four-point rating scale), respiratory variables and change of end-expiratory lung volume from atmospheric airway pressure to ventilation with positive end-expiratory pressure. Data are presented as median [IQR]. There was less concealment of laryngeal structures with the Tritube than with the MLT; 7 [6 to 9] vs. 22 [18 to 27] %, (P < 0.001). Surgical conditions were rated comparably (P = 0.06). A subgroup of residents in training perceived surgical conditions to be better with the Tritube compared with the MLT (P = 0.006). Respiratory system compliance with the Tritube was higher at 61 [52 to 71] vs. 46 [41 to 51] ml cmH2O (P < 0.001), plateau pressure was lower at 14 [13 to 15] vs. 17 [16 to 18] cmH2O (P < 0.001), and change of end-expiratory lung volume was higher at 681 [463 to 849] vs. 414 [194 to 604] ml, (P = 0.023) for Tritube-FCV compared with MLT-VCV. During laryngeal surgery a Tritube improves visibility of the surgical site but not surgical conditions when compared with a MLT 6.0. FCV improves lung aeration and respiratory system compliance compared with VCV. DRKS00013097.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Good visibility is essential for successful laryngeal surgery. A Tritube with outer diameter 4.4 mm, combined with flow-controlled ventilation (FCV), enables ventilation by active expiration with a sealed trachea and may improve laryngeal visibility.
OBJECTIVES
We hypothesised that a Tritube with FCV would provide better laryngeal visibility and surgical conditions for laryngeal surgery than a conventional microlaryngeal tube (MLT) with volume-controlled ventilation (VCV).
DESIGN
Randomised, controlled trial.
SETTING
University Medical Centre.
PATIENTS
A total of 55 consecutive patients (>18 years) undergoing elective laryngeal surgery were assessed for participation, providing 40 evaluable data sets with 20 per group.
INTERVENTIONS
Random allocation to intubation with Tritube and ventilation with FCV (Tritube-FCV group) or intubation with MLT 6.0 and ventilation with VCV (MLT-VCV) as control. Tidal volumes of 7 ml kg predicted body weight, and positive end-expiratory pressure of 7 cmH2O were standardised between groups.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Primary endpoint was the tube-related concealment of laryngeal structures, measured on videolaryngoscopic photographs by appropriate software. Secondary endpoints were surgical conditions (categorical four-point rating scale), respiratory variables and change of end-expiratory lung volume from atmospheric airway pressure to ventilation with positive end-expiratory pressure. Data are presented as median [IQR].
RESULTS
There was less concealment of laryngeal structures with the Tritube than with the MLT; 7 [6 to 9] vs. 22 [18 to 27] %, (P < 0.001). Surgical conditions were rated comparably (P = 0.06). A subgroup of residents in training perceived surgical conditions to be better with the Tritube compared with the MLT (P = 0.006). Respiratory system compliance with the Tritube was higher at 61 [52 to 71] vs. 46 [41 to 51] ml cmH2O (P < 0.001), plateau pressure was lower at 14 [13 to 15] vs. 17 [16 to 18] cmH2O (P < 0.001), and change of end-expiratory lung volume was higher at 681 [463 to 849] vs. 414 [194 to 604] ml, (P = 0.023) for Tritube-FCV compared with MLT-VCV.
CONCLUSION
During laryngeal surgery a Tritube improves visibility of the surgical site but not surgical conditions when compared with a MLT 6.0. FCV improves lung aeration and respiratory system compliance compared with VCV.
TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER
DRKS00013097.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31644514
doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001110
pmc: PMC6855316
doi:

Types de publication

Comparative Study Journal Article Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

963-971

Références

Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2019 May;36(5):327-334
pubmed: 30730422
Anesth Analg. 2017 Oct;125(4):1246-1252
pubmed: 28368939
J Laryngol Otol. 2010 Jun;124(6):641-5
pubmed: 20053309
Respir Care. 2016 Dec;61(12):1597-1604
pubmed: 27555619
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2018 Oct;35(10):736-744
pubmed: 29734208
Br J Anaesth. 2008 Aug;101(2):266-72
pubmed: 18524781
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2017 Jul;61(6):580-589
pubmed: 28436022
J Appl Physiol (1985). 1997 May;82(5):1531-41
pubmed: 9134903
J Laryngol Otol. 2016 May;130(S2):S23-S27
pubmed: 27841108
BMJ. 2018 Sep 10;362:k3030
pubmed: 30201797
Can J Anaesth. 2009 Apr;56(4):284-90
pubmed: 19296189
Anesthesiol Clin North Am. 2001 Sep;19(3):497-541, vi
pubmed: 11571904
Br J Anaesth. 2015 Dec;115(6):867-72
pubmed: 26582847
Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2015 Sep;29(3):331-40
pubmed: 26643098
Br J Anaesth. 2010 Mar;104(3):382-6
pubmed: 20100697
Anesthesiology. 2006 Jan;104(1):52-9
pubmed: 16394690
Br J Anaesth. 2014 Sep;113(3):474-83
pubmed: 24694683
Respir Care. 2005 Jan;50(1):110-23; discussion 123-4
pubmed: 15636649
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2011 Oct;55(9):1068-77
pubmed: 22092203

Auteurs

Johannes Schmidt (J)

From the Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care (JS, FG, JW, VK, CW, SB, SW, SS) and Department of Otorhinolaryngology (JP, CB), Medical Centre - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH