ArticleSAGE open medical case reports2024
Does the aerosol box accommodate the double-lumen tube intubation?
Article in SAGE open medical case reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Enhanced Aerosol Containment Performance of a Negative Pressure Hood with an Aerodynamic Cap Design: Multi-Method Validation Using CFD, PAO Particles, and Microbial Testing.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aerosol box was widely used to shield healthcare providers from exposure to COVID-19 during single-lumen intubation procedures. However, it has not previously been evaluated for its use in double-lumen tube intubations. This report presents the case of a 25-year-old COVID-19-positive male with a fever who required an emergency thoracotomy for a mediastinal abscess. During the rapid-sequence induction of general anesthesia, an attempt to use the aerosol box for double-lumen tube intubation was made. The attempt faced unique challenges due to the aerosol box's restrictive dimensions and the double-lumen tube's physical characteristics, such as length and flexibility, resulting in an unsuccessful first attempt. Consequently, the aerosol box was removed, and a successful intubation was achieved without it. Postoperatively, the patient remained intubated, was transferred to the intensive care unit, and was extubated on the second postoperative day, followed by intensive care unit discharge. This experience suggests that the standard aerosol box size (50 cm wide, 40 cm deep, and 50 cm tall) may not be suitable for double-lumen tube intubations. This highlights the importance of assessing the feasibility of each aerosol box before its clinical use in such procedures.
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.