ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2016
A novel method for right one-lung ventilation modeling in rabbits.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrasound-Guided Selective Bronchial Intubation: A Feasibility Study in Pediatric Animal Model.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Oxygenation, inflammatory response and lung injury during one lung ventilation in rabbits using inspired oxygen fraction of 0.6 vs. 1.0.Journal of biomedical research · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is no standard method by which to establish a right one-lung ventilation (OLV) model in rabbits. In the present study, a novel method is proposed to compare with two other methods. After 0.5 h of baseline two-lung ventilation (TLV), 40 rabbits were randomly divided into sham group (TLV for 3 h as a contrast) and three right-OLV groups (right OLV for 3 h with different methods): Deep intubation group, clamp group and blocker group (deeply intubate the self-made bronchial blocker into the left main bronchus, the novel method). These three methods were compared using a number of variables: Circulation by heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP); oxygenation by arterial blood gas analysis; airway pressure; lung injury by histopathology; and time, blood loss, success rate of modeling. Following OLV, compared with the sham group, arterial partial pressure of oxygen and arterial hemoglobin oxygen saturation decreased, peak pressure increased and lung injury scores were higher in three OLV groups at 3 h of OLV. All these indexes showed no differences between the three OLV groups. During right-OLV modeling, less time was spent in the blocker group (6±2 min), compared with the other two OLV groups (13±4 min in deep intubation group, P<0.05; 33±9 min in clamp group, P<0.001); more blood loss was observed in clamp group (11.7±2.8 ml), compared with the other two OLV groups (2.3±0.5 ml in deep intubation group, P<0.001; 2.1±0.6 ml in blocker group, P<0.001). The first-time and final success rate of modeling showed no differences among the three OLV groups. Deep intubation of the self-made bronchial blocker into the left main bronchus is an easy, effective and reliable method to establish a right-OLV model in rabbits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.