ArticleSaudi journal of anaesthesia
Endoscopic control for bronchial blockers: Experimental evaluation of single-lung ventilation strategies in simulation-based models.
Article in Saudi journal of anaesthesia. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: One-lung ventilation (OLV) is essential in thoracic anesthesia and is commonly achieved using double-lumen tubes or bronchial blockers (BBs). Recent visualization-integrated systems, such as VivaSight™, may improve procedural efficiency and safety, particularly for clinicians with limited BB experience. Methods: A preclinical simulation-based evaluation was conducted in a randomized crossover design using two experimental simulation models. In the first experimental model, a randomized crossover simulation manikin study was conducted that involved 21 anesthesiologists with minimal BB experience, comparing two BB-based lung isolation strategies: a visualization-integrated approach using VivaSight-EB™ and a conventional approach using EZ-Blocker™ with bronchoscopic guidance. In addition, the second experimental model involved a mixed-model randomized crossover simulation study that evaluated procedural workflow, operator experience, and cost-related outcomes. Twenty anesthesiologists with experience in lung-isolation performed two BB-based lung isolation strategies: blind placement of the EZ-Blocker™ and placement of the EZ-Blocker™ through a VivaSight™ single-lumen endotracheal tube. The primary outcome in the two simulation-based experiments was time to achieve left-lung exclusion. Results: In the simulation manikin experiment, 21 anesthesiologists with limited experience in lung isolation were involved and the visualization-integrated strategy achieved significantly faster left-lung exclusion compared with the conventional approach (32.1 ± 5.3 s vs 134.8 ± 56.6 s; Conclusion: The VivaSight-EB™ system demonstrated superior efficiency and workflow performance across both simulation environments. These findings support the potential clinical advantage of integrated visualization systems, particularly for operators with limited BB experience, and warrant further clinical evaluation.
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.