ArticleVeterinary surgery : VS2025
Cadaveric evaluation of bronchial blockade using the Coda vascular catheter placed under Borescope guidance.
Article in Veterinary surgery : VS, 2025. 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.
- Cadaveric evaluation of bronchial blockade using the Coda vascular catheter placed under Borescope guidance.Veterinary surgery : VS · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the feasibility of achieving bronchial blockade using a vascular balloon catheter under low-cost semi-flexible borescope guidance in dogs. STUDY
designCadaveric pilot study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Canine cadavers (n = 7) weighing between 12.2 and 63 kg.
methodsTwo participants attempted four different techniques to achieve bronchus blockade using a 10 Fr Coda catheter or an EZ-blocker (EZ) under borescopic (B) or endoscopic (E) guidance. Placement success was confirmed via thoracoscopy. Success rate, procedure duration, and reasons of failure were recorded.
resultsB-Coda catheter placement was possible on dogs intubated with a minimum 8.5 mm size endotracheal tube (ETT). E-EZ was unsuccessful with an 8.5 ETT and below and on some dogs bigger than 30 kg. Excluding the failures due to size limitations of the devices, success rate during first attempt for the left side was 50% for B-EZ and 75% for all other techniques. Right-sided success was 50% for B-EZ, 33% for B-Coda, 66% for E-EZ and 62% for E-Coda. Malpositioning of the devices occurred twice as commonly under borescopic guidance. The techniques were all successful after up to two additional attempts. Time to achieve blockade was faster using endoscopic guidance.
conclusionThe catheter allowed bronchial occlusion in larger canine cadavers. The borescope allowed guidance without the size limitation of the endoscope. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The Coda catheter had no size limitation in comparison to the EZ blocker and could be analternative to it. A sterilized borescope may be an option when bronchoscope size is inappropriate for a patient.
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.