ArticleAnesthesia and pain medicine2023
Depth of double-lumen endobronchial tube: a comparison between real practice and clinical recommendations using height-based formulae.
Article in Anesthesia and pain medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06731517 (Comparison of Ultrasound and CT-Based Anatomical Measurements with Classical Methods for Predicting Size and Optimal Placement Depth of Left-Sided Double-Lumen Endobronchial Tubes in Thoracic Surgery), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Comparison of Ultrasound and CT-Based Anatomical Measurements with Classical Methods for Predicting Size and Optimal Placement Depth of Left-Sided Double-Lumen Endobronchial Tubes in Thoracic Surgery
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe depth of double-lumen endobronchial tube (DLT) is reportedly known tobe directly proportional to height and several height-based recommendations have beensuggested. This retrospective study was designed to find out the difference between calculated depths using height-based formulae and realistic depths in clinical practice of DLTplacement by analyzing pooled data from patients intubated with left-sided DLT.
methodsThe electronic medical records of adults, intubated with DLT from February 2018to December 2020, were reviewed. Data retrieved included age, sex, height, weight, andsize and depth of DLT. The finally documented DLT depth (depth final, DF) was comparedwith the calculated depths, and the relationship between height and DF was also evaluated.A questionnaire on endobronchial intubation method was sent to anesthesiologists.
resultsA total of 503 out of 575 electronic records of consecutive patients were analyzed.Although the relationship between height and DF was shown to have significant correlation(Spearman's rho = 0.63, P < 0.001), DF was shown to be significantly greater than calculated depths (P < 0.001). Despite 57.1% of anesthesiologists have knowledge of clinical recommendations to anticipate size and depth of DLT, no one routinely utilizes those recommendations.
conclusionsAnesthesiologists tend to place DLTs in a deeper position than expected whendepths are calculated using height-based recommendations. Although such discrepanciesmay not be clinically meaningful, efforts are needed to standardize the methods of endobronchial intubation to prevent potential complications associated with malposition.
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.