Propofol versus inhalation anaesthesia for one-lung ventilation during adult thoracic surgery

Author(s):  
IIM Garutti ◽  
MM Barranco ◽  
PP Cruz ◽  
LL Olmedilla ◽  
BB Quintana ◽  
...  
2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
IIM Garutti ◽  
MM Barranco ◽  
PP Cruz ◽  
LL Olmedilla ◽  
BB Quintana ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
pp. 1602
Author(s):  
Gonul Sagiroglu ◽  
Fazli Yanik ◽  
Yekta A. Karamusfaoglu ◽  
Elif Copuroglu

Background: In the last years thoracic surgery developed in greater extent with equipments and techniques in one lung ventilation. Still general anesthesia in one lung ventilation approved as gold standard. In thoracic surgery most performed surgeries are plerural decortication and lung biopsy. Avoidance of intubation in Video Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS) procedures gains us some advantages in postoperative period; a better respiratory parameters, survival and morbidity mortality rates, reduced hospitalization time and costs, reduced early stress hormone and immune response.  Methods: In this study, we reported our experience of 24 consecutive patients undergoing VATS with Thoracic Epidural Anesthesia (TEA) between December 2015 through July 2016 to evaluate the feasibility, safety and indication of this innovative technique whether it will be a gold standart in thoracic surgeries or not in the future.Results: Operation procedures included wedge resection in 11 (46%) patients (eight of them for pneumothorax, three of them for diagnosis), in 10 (42%) patients pleural biopsy (eight of them used talc pleurodesis), in two (8%) patients air leak control with fibrin glue and in one (4%) patient bilateral thoracal sympathectomy for hyperhidrosis.  We used T4-5 TEA space for 17 (72%) of patients, while we used T4-6 TEA space for 7 (28%) of patients. TEA block reached the desired level after the mean 26.4±4.3 minutes (range 21-34 min). There was no occurrence of hypotension and bradycardia during and after TEA. One (4%) patient required conversion to general anesthesia and tracheal intubation because of significant diaphragmatic contractions and hyperpne. Conversion to thoracotomy was not needed in any patient.Conclusions: We conclude that nVATS procedure with aid of TEA is feasibile and safety with minimal adverse events. The procedure can have such advantages as early mobilization, opening of early oral intake, early discharge, patient satisfaction, low pain level. Nevertheless, there is a need for randomized controlled trials involving wider case series on the subject.


2019 ◽  
Vol 130 (3) ◽  
pp. 385-393 ◽  
Author(s):  
MiHye Park ◽  
Hyun Joo Ahn ◽  
Jie Ae Kim ◽  
Mikyung Yang ◽  
Burn Young Heo ◽  
...  

Abstract Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New Background Recently, several retrospective studies have suggested that pulmonary complication is related with driving pressure more than any other ventilatory parameter. Thus, the authors compared driving pressure–guided ventilation with conventional protective ventilation in thoracic surgery, where lung protection is of the utmost importance. The authors hypothesized that driving pressure–guided ventilation decreases postoperative pulmonary complications more than conventional protective ventilation. Methods In this double-blind, randomized, controlled study, 292 patients scheduled for elective thoracic surgery were included in the analysis. The protective ventilation group (n = 147) received conventional protective ventilation during one-lung ventilation: tidal volume 6 ml/kg of ideal body weight, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) 5 cm H2O, and recruitment maneuver. The driving pressure group (n = 145) received the same tidal volume and recruitment, but with individualized PEEP which produces the lowest driving pressure (plateau pressure–PEEP) during one-lung ventilation. The primary outcome was postoperative pulmonary complications based on the Melbourne Group Scale (at least 4) until postoperative day 3. Results Melbourne Group Scale of at least 4 occurred in 8 of 145 patients (5.5%) in the driving pressure group, as compared with 18 of 147 (12.2%) in the protective ventilation group (P = 0.047, odds ratio 0.42; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.99). The number of patients who developed pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome was less in the driving pressure group than in the protective ventilation group (10/145 [6.9%] vs. 22/147 [15.0%], P = 0.028, odds ratio 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.92). Conclusions Application of driving pressure–guided ventilation during one-lung ventilation was associated with a lower incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications compared with conventional protective ventilation in thoracic surgery.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document