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
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
963-971Références
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