Trial reportYonsei medical journal2025
Novel Triple-Cuff versus Conventional Double-Cuff Double-Lumen Endobronchial Tube in Patients with Risk Factors for Tube Misdirection.
Trial report in Yonsei medical journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06061055 (Comparison of VentiBroncTM Anchor With Conventional Double-lumen Endobronchial Tube in Patients With High Risk of Malposition), 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 VentiBroncTM Anchor With Conventional Double-lumen Endobronchial Tube in Patients With High Risk of Malposition
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAccurate positioning of the double-lumen endobronchial tube (DLT) is crucial for successful lung isolation during thoracic surgery. However, misdirection of the left-sided DLT into the right main bronchus frequently occurs in short, obese females with narrow airways. A novel triple-cuff DLT features an additional carinal cuff positioned on the right side of the tube, which differentiates it from conventional double-cuff DLTs. We hypothesized that inflating the carinal cuff would direct the bronchial tip of the triple-cuff DLT toward the left main bronchus, thereby reducing the likelihood of DLT misdirection when compared to the conventional double-cuff DLT. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this single-center, unblinded randomized controlled trial, short, obese females with narrow airways were randomly assigned to either the triple-cuff or double-cuff group (n=77 each) and were intubated with the respective DLTs. The DLT misdirection rate, adjustment depth for optimal positioning, intubation time, and the incidence of hypoxia, airway injury, and postoperative airway complications were assessed.
resultsData from 143 patients were analyzed. The triple-cuff group exhibited a lower DLT misdirection rate compared to the double-cuff group (15.3% vs. 46.5%, odds ratio 4.81, 95% confidence interval 2.18-10.64,
conclusionTriple-cuff DLT was superior to conventional DLT in reducing DLT misdirection in short, obese females with narrow airways. Furthermore, it facilitated a faster intubation process and reduced airway complications, thereby enhancing patient safety. CLINICAL
trial registrationNCT06061055 (ClinicalTrials.gov).
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.