ReviewJournal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care2025
Deciding how to decide the correct double-lumen tube: a narrative review of methods and evidence.
Review in Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nuances of perioperative lung isolation and airway management.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Video double-lumen endotracheal tube reduces hypoxemia during one-lung ventilation in thoracoscopic surgery: a prospective randomized controlled trial.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Factors associated with selective fiberoptic bronchoscopy use after left double-lumen tube placement.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Observational
- Ultrasound-guided double-lumen tube size selection improves intubation success and postoperative airway outcomes in thoracic surgery: a randomized controlled study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The selection of the appropriate size of a double-lumen tube (DLT) is a critical yet often underestimated aspect of thoracic anaesthesia. The present narrative review evaluates traditional and emerging methods for determining DLT size, including anthropometric formulas, chest X-rays, CT scans, and ultrasonography. Despite the prevalence of height- and gender-based predictions, mounting evidence underscores their restricted correlation with airway anatomy. Chest X-rays and CT scans have been shown to offer more accurate estimations of tracheobronchial dimensions, while ultrasound has been identified as a promising bedside tool. Recent meta-analytic evidence and technological advancements, including 3D reconstruction and AI-based modelling, may support a more personalised and safer approach. It is recommended that a pragmatic, image-guided strategy be employed to minimise airway trauma, improve lung isolation, and optimise patient outcomes.
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.