ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2024
Comparing the lung isolation efficacy of bronchial blocker positioning via electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy versus fiberoptic bronchoscopy: a randomized study.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The inflated balloon of a bronchial blocker (BB) obstructs the mainstem bronchus, allowing controlled ventilation of one lung while collapsing the other for lung isolation during thoracic surgery. We compared the effects of lung isolation using electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy (ENB)-guided versus fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB)-guided BB placement to provide a novel BB positioning method for airway management during thoracic anesthesia. Methods: We randomly divided 106 patients who underwent elective one-lung ventilation (OLV) with intraoperative ENB usage into ENB and FOB groups. We compared subjective lung collapse scores, time required for correct BB placement, incidence of BB malposition, and frequency of intraoperative BB repositioning with FOB between the groups. Heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure were recorded before intubation of single-lumen tracheal tube, and before and after BB positioning. Blood gas levels were measured before and at 10 and 30 min after initiating OLV. Postoperative follow-up indices, including blood cell analysis, C-reactive protein levels, and pulmonary complications, were also recorded. Results: The subjective lung collapse score was significantly higher in the ENB group than in the FOB group [9.08 (1.36) Conclusions: ENB-guided BB positioning is an efficient method of lung isolation, demonstrating superior and more rapid lung collapse effects compared with conventional FOB-guided BB placement. Trial Registration: The trial was registered on China Clinical Trial Registry (registration No. ChiCTR2300076133).
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.