Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 57584

AbstractCase ReportDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Case report
Year : 2021 | Month : July | Volume : 15 | Issue : 7 | Page : UD01 - UD03 Full Version

One Lung Ventilation Using an Orotracheal Tube and an Endobronchial Blocker in a Patient with Difficult Airway


Published: July 1, 2021 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2021/49111.15122
PA Sahana, Pooja Rao, Gururaj Tantry, Thrivikrama Padur Tantry

1. Junior Resident, Department of Anaesthesiology, AJ Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Mangaluru, Karnataka, India. 2. Junior Resident, Department of Anaesthesiology, AJ Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Mangaluru, Karnataka, India. 3. Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, AJ Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Mangaluru, Karnataka, India. 4. Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, AJ Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Mangaluru, Karnataka, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. PA Sahana,
Junior Resident, Department of Anaesthesiology, AJ Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada-575004, Karnataka, India.
E-mail: sahana.ailukunje@gmail.com

Abstract

One-Lung Ventilation (OLV) is achieved in thoracic surgeries to facilitate collapse of one lung for better surgical visualisation. Double-lumen tubes and bronchial blockers are two commonly used devices for OLV. Patients with ‘difficult airway’ pose significant challenges for insertion of Double Lumen Endotracheal Tube (DLT). Dual malignancy such as carcinoma of lung and head and neck is extremely rare to present with. Patients presenting with restricted mouth opening due to previous surgeries and requiring lung isolation techniques may pose significant challenges to anaesthesiologist. The difficult airway scenario may arise in such patients owing to their previous surgery to the tongue, larynx, neck, mandible or previous radiation. The present case was of 47-year-old of lung isolation achieved in a patient with restricted mouth opening with an orotracheal tube, bougie, endobronchial blocker and a flexible Fibre Optic Bronchoscope (FOB). Left upper lobectomy was successfully performed after passing endobronchial blocker through a conventional orotracheal tube under the guidance of FOB.

Keywords

Bronchial blocker, Double lumen endotracheal tube, Fibre optic bronchoscope

Case Report

A 47-year-old male, weighing 55 kg, was diagnosed of synchronous dual malignancy with carcinoma right buccal mucosa and carcinoma left lung. Carcinoma of lung was an incidental finding on Contrast Enhanced Computed Tomography (CECT) which showed a lesion 6 × 5 cm in the left apical segment. Patient had undergone wide local excision, segmental mandibulectomy and free soft tissue anterolateral thigh flap reconstruction for carcinoma buccal mucosa two months earlier. Previous surgery was done after awake fibre optic nasotracheal intubation done by same anaesthesia team. Patient was scheduled for left upper lobectomy. Patient was evaluated preoperatively, as per department protocol. He had unremarkable laboratory reports. Preoperative echocardiography showed moderate aortic regurgitation with good biventricular function.

Airway examination revealed restricted mouth opening (Mallampatti 4) with inter-incisor distance of one-finger, thyromental distance of three fingers (Table/Fig 1)a,b. With free flap at the right angle of the mouth in situ, presumably make the mask ventilation considered to be difficult. Overall, the airway was considered as ‘difficult airway’ for both bag and mask ventilation and tracheal intubation especially for insertion of DLT.

Upon arrival in operating room peripheral Oxygen Saturation (SpO2), 5-lead-electrocardiography, non invasive blood pressure, heart rate was monitored. A thoracic epidural catheter was placed at T9 and T10 intervertebral space for the purpose of analgesia. Patient was preoxygenated for three minutes and premedicated with midazolam 2 mg, glycopyrrolate 0.2 mg, fentanyl 50 mcg. He was induced with propofol, i.v., 100 mg. After determining that mask ventilation was possible, inj. succinylcholine, 75 mg, i.v., was administered. Using McCoy laryngoscope, laryngoscopy was attempted by experienced anaesthesiologist. Cormack-Lehan grade classification of three was identified after laryngoscopy. With optimal backward and upward pressure, there was inability to visualise glottis opening including arytenoids or other cartilages. Subsequently, a bougie was passed blindly into trachea. A tracheal tube was passed rail-roading technique without removing the laryngoscope subsequently. At the end, patient was successfully intubated with 8 mm orotracheal tube. Bilateral lung ventilation and air entry was conformed with 5-point auscultation method.

Patient’s left subclavian vein was inserted with triple lumen central venous catheter under ultrasound guidance. Left radial arterial catheter was placed simultaneously. An endobronchial blocker (COOPDECH) followed by a flexible fibre optic bronchoscope was passed through the lumen of the orotracheal tube. Under the bronchoscopy guidance endobronchial blocker was passed into the left main bronchus. Negotiating the endobronchial blocker to left main was guided by longitudinal fibres of left main bronchus. Position of the blocker was confirmed when the blue coloured cuff was observed just beyond the carina at its inflation (Table/Fig 2).

Ventilation was continued initially with volume-controlled mode, tidal volume of 450 mL, respiratory rate of 14 cycles per minute, Fraction of Inspired Oxygen (FiO2) of 0.5. End Tidal Carbon Dioxide (EtCO2) was monitored throughout the surgery. Anaesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane of 2%, propofol infusion, opioids and intravenous boluses of cis-atracurium. Patient was positioned right laterally; position of the bronchial blocker was confirmed again using fibre optic bronchoscope.

Surgical procedure included thoracotomy and resection of apical lobe. Before opening the thoracic cavity, the OLV was initiated by inflating the blocker cuff. A suction catheter was passed through the tracheal tube to clear the trachea. The bronchial blocker lumen was used for suctioning for faster deflation of the non dependent operative lung. Ventilation was continued on volume-controlled mode but with a reduction in tidal volume. Arterial Blood Gas (ABG) analysis was done upon initiating OLV (when EtCO2 was 36 mmHg) which showed a pH 7.30, pO2 248 and pCO2 50. ABG was repeated after 30 minutes however showed no significant difference in arterial-alveolar pCO2 gradient. SpO2 remained above 97% throughout the surgery, with a FiO2 of 0.5. Patient remained haemodynamically stable throughout the surgery and subsequent blood gas readings did not show clinically significant abnormal values. After the resection of particular lobe, the bronchial blocker was deflated and two-lung ventilation was resumed. Total duration of OLV was for 3.25 hours.

On attempting spontaneous breathing, patient was reversed with inj. neostigmine, i.v., 2.5 mg and inj. glycopyrrolate, i.v. 0.2 mg and trachea was extubated. Patient was shifted to intensive care unit was monitored as per departmental protocols. Postoperative analgesia was maintained with epidural infusion of inj. ropivacaine, 0.2% and inj. buprenorphine, 3 mcg/hour, with additional doses of intravenous boluses of tramadol. Patient was advised to continue deep spirometric breathing exercises. Postoperative period was uneventful and patient was discharged on 6th day.

Discussion

The OLV in patients undergoing thoracic surgery is typically achieved with DLT. Patients with ‘difficult airway’ pose significant challenges for insertion of DLT (1),(2),(3). Endobronchial blockers are being used for OLV in patients with restricted mouth opening who require thoracic surgery (4),(5),(7). Dual malignancy is often uncommon and moreover, carcinoma of lung and head and neck is extremely rare combination to present with. The difficult airway scenario may arise in patients due to poor mouth opening (Mallampati 3 or 4), prominent upper incisors and a receding mandible, limited cervical mobility or previous surgery to the tongue, larynx, neck, mandible or previous radiation (8).

Awake fibre optic intubation with a DLT is problematic in a patient with difficult airway because of the large size of the tube and greater difficulty in blunting the laryngeal and carinal stimulation during DLT placement. If a conventional orotracheal tube is used to secure the airway, an endobronchial blocker may be the safest means of establishing lung isolation as it avoids the need for a tube exchange (9). When conventional orotracheal tube is used, if postoperative ventilator support is required, the bronchial blocker may simply be removed at end of the case (10).

In this case, normal orotracheal tube was considered for intubation. This is because it is extremely difficult to pass a DLT in a patient with restricted mouth opening or sometimes it may be never possible. Nasotracheal intubation is not preferred using DLT owing to its distal curvature(s) and large outer diameter. The initial two attempts to pass DLT (using Seldingers technique, railroading) over the bougie were unsuccessful because, the narrow lumen of the DLT did not facilitate the smooth passage at the distal angled bend tip portion of the bougie. Fibre optic intubation would be better option for such cases however passage of DLT again remains difficult. Conventionally, size 32 of DLT has external diameter of 10.7 mm, and bronchial diameter of 3.5 mm; therefore, it can accommodate only flexible fibre optic bronchoscope of size 2.4 mm. Only 35, 37 or 39 DLTs can accommodate a fibre optic scope of ≥3.5 mm. In this patient, FOI was not done because as 32 size DLT was used. Using fibre optic scope size 2.4, it remains unknown about the feasibility and success of DLT intubation in a difficult airway patient. Furthermore, intubation with DLT when attempted through pediatric size flexible fibre optic scope, may damage the optical fibres.

Endobronchial blockers are thin, rigid catheters with an inner lumen and a distal cuff at the tip. Inflating the cuff prevents distal airflow and lung isolation (11). A conventional orotracheal tube with an internal diameter of at least 8 mm is recommended for the commonly used 9-Fr bronchial blocker, though smaller tube sizes may be used (12). The 8 mm orotracheal tube size is comparable in size to that of a 32 Fr DLT. In both right and left-sided operations bronchial blockers are safe and effective for achieving lung isolation (13) and surgical exposure are equivalent to that of left-sided DLTs (14). Some studies have concluded that bronchial blockers took longer time for positioning or required frequent repositions, more recent reports suggests that bronchial blockers may be help in more rapid and complete lung collapse (7),(13),(14),(15).

Orhan ME et al., performed an orotracheal intubation technique using a DLT, flexible fibre optic bronchoscope and a stylet in an unanticipated difficult airway due to massive lingular tonsillar hyperplasia, for thoracotomy. They introduced stylet within the DLT, converting flexible scope to rigid scope. Flexible fibre optic bronchoscope tip was shielded by DLT from better visualisation, performing a successful intubation. However, they did not mention the DLT size mentioned anywhere in their report (16). In another report introduced a video fibre optic scope through nostril to monitor the passage of DLT rather than as an introducer in oral cancer patients. The authors passed a 5.5 mm video fibre optic scope and successfully intubated, proving as an alternative technique for difficult intubation of DLT (17). Similarly, Liu Z et al., reported successful OLV using an extra luminal uniblocker along with a small Single Lumen Tube (SLT) in an emergency thoracotomy patient, having a large mass on the glottis which obstructed the entry of the DLT (18). Koo BS et al., performed a bronchoscopic guided introduction of SLT in a 4-year female scheduled for left lower lobectomy. OLV was achieved with limited instrumentation (19). In contrast to the above cases, usage of bronchial blocker assisted OLV has been reported by only few. Kaza SR et al., achieved OLV by positioning a wire-guided Arndt bronchial blocker through a nasotracheal tube in a patient with distorted upper and lower airway anatomy (20).

Galata M et al., performed selective and sequential lobar ventilation with EZ Blocker (EZB) that allowed identification and the suturing of pulmonary lesions with an optimum oxygenation (21). EZB is used in selective lobar exclusion where alternate exclusion of different lobes of the lungs is necessary. EZB is a Y shape semi-rigid endobronchial blocker with two distal extensions with two inflatable cuffs which are colour-coded (22). Rispoli M et al., described that the EZB can be used via tracheostomy (23). Campos JH et al., conducted a retrospective study on 70 patients with tracheostomy for lung isolation. OLV was achieved with Shiley cuffed low pressure tracheostomy tube with a bronchial blocker in patients who had fresh tracheostomy stoma of <7 days. But in patients with long term stoma, OLV was achieved with a SLT with a bronchial blocker or SLT guided into a selective bronchus. They used flexible fibre optic bronchoscope in all cases (24). Irrespective of previously published reports, this case was unique because of dual malignancy associated with difficult airway where OLV was successfully managed using a conventional orotracheal tube.

Conclusion

The OLV can be achieved successfully in a patient with restricted mouth opening, after placing an endobronchial blocker through an orotracheal tube under the guidance of flexible fibre optic bronchoscope. This method is best for OLV in situations where placement of a DLT is technically impossible or impractical.

References

1.
Garg R, Kumari A, Gupta N, Kumar V. One-Lung ventilation for lung lobectomy using endobronchial blocker through adjustable silicon hyperflex tracheostomy tube in postlaryngectomy patient. A A Case Rep. 2016;7:132-34. [crossref] [PubMed]
2.
Satya-Krishna R, Popat M. Insertion of the double lumen tube in the difficult airway. Anaesthesia. 2006;61:896-98. [crossref] [PubMed]
3.
Shih CK, Kuo YW, Lu IC, Hsu HT, Chu KS, Wang FY. Application of a double-lumen tube for one-lung ventilation in patients with anticipated difficult airway. Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwan. 2010;48:41-44. [crossref]
4.
Liu Z, He W, Jia Q, Yang X, Liang S, Wang X. A comparison of extraluminal and intraluminal use of the Uniblocker in left thoracic surgery: A CONSORT-compliant article. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96:e6966. [crossref] [PubMed]
5.
Zaki JF, Tran SF, Markham T, Choi W, Perez RE, Pawelek TR, et al. Does the patient need lung protection or lung isolation? A case report and literature review of one-lung ventilation guidelines. Int J Ane & Rel. 2017;1:13-15. [crossref]
6.
Brodsky JB, Lemmens HJ. Left double-lumen tubes: Clinical experience with 1,170 patients. Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anaesthesia. 2003;17:289-98. [crossref]
7.
Lu Y, Dai W, Zong Z, Xiao Y, Wu D, Liu X, et al. Bronchial blocker versus left double-lumen endotracheal tube for one-lung ventilation in right video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anaesth. 2018;32(1):297-301. [crossref] [PubMed]
8.
Campos JH. Lung isolation techniques for patients with difficult airway. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2010;23:12-17. [crossref] [PubMed]
9.
Patane PS, Sell BA, Mahla ME. Awake fiberoptic endobronchial intubation. J Cardiothorac Anaesth. 1990;4:229-31. [crossref]
10.
Collins SR, Titus BJ, Campos JH, Blank RS. Lung isolation in the patient with a difficult airway. Anaesthesia & Analgesia. 2018;126(6):1968-78. [crossref] [PubMed]
11.
Campos JH, Hallam EA, Van Natta T, Kernstine KH. Devices for lung isolation used by anaesthesiologists with limited thoracic experience: Comparison of double-lumen endotracheal tube, Univent® torque control blocker, and Arndt Wire-guided Endobronchial Blocker® Anaesthesiology. 2006;104:261-66.
12.
Benumof J, Hagberg C. Separation of the two lungs: Doublelumen tubes, endotracheal blockers, and endobronchial single-lumen tubes. In: Hagberg CA, ed. Benumof and Hagberg's Airway. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier, 2013:549-68.
13.
Bussières JS, Somma J, Del Castillo JL, Lemieux J, Conti M, Ugalde PA, et al. Bronchial blocker versus left double-lumen endotracheal tube in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: A randomized-controlled trial examining time and quality of lung deflation. Can J Anaesth. 2016;63:818-27. [crossref] [PubMed]
14.
Narayanaswamy M, McRae K, Slinger P, Dugas G, Kanellakos GW, Roscoe A, et al. Choosing a lung isolation device for thoracic surgery: A randomized trial of three bronchial blockers versus double-lumen tubes. Anaesth Analg. 2009;108:1097-101. [crossref] [PubMed]
15.
Rispoli M, Zani G, Bizzarri F, Nespoli MR, Mattiacci DM, Agnoletti V, et al. Bronchial blocker positioning: Learning curve and confidence in its use. Minerva Anestesiol. 2018;84:1254-60. [crossref] [PubMed]
16.
Orhan ME, Gözübüyük A, Sizlan A, Dere U. Unexpected difficult intubation due to lingual tonsillar hyperplasia in a thoracotomy patient: Intubation with the double-lumen tube using stylet and fiberoptic bronchoscopy. J Clin Anaesth. 2009;21:439-41. [crossref] [PubMed]
17.
Chen KY, Lin SK, Hsiao CL, Hsu WT, Tsao SL. Use of a video fiberoptic bronchoscope to assist double-lumen endobronchial tube intubation in a patient with a difficult airway. Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwan. 2011;49:26-28. [crossref] [PubMed]
18.
Liu Z, Yang X, Jia Q. One-lung ventilation in a patient with a large mass on the glottis: A case report. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97:e12237. [crossref] [PubMed]
19.
Koo BS, Lee SH, Lee SJ, Jung WH, Chung YH, Lee JH, et al. A case of one-lung ventilation using a single-lumen tube placed under fiberoptic bronchoscopic guidance in a 4-year-old child: A case report. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020;99:e21737. [crossref] [PubMed]
20.
Kaza SR, Maddali MM, Albahrani MJ, Vaghari AA. One lung ventilation in a patient with an upper and lower airway abnormality. Indian J Anaesth. 2012;56:567-69. [crossref] [PubMed]
21.
Galatà M, Lyberis P, Bisciaio A, Ceraolo E, Rosboch GL, Ruffini E, et al. The efficacy of endobronchial blocker "EZ-blocker" for selective lobar ventilation: case report. Curr Chall Thorac Surg. 2020;2:19. [crossref]
22.
Moritz A, Irouschek A, Birkholz T, Prottengeier J, Sirbu H, Schmidt J. The EZ-blocker for one-lung ventilation in patients undergoing thoracic surgery: Clinical applications and experience in 100 cases in a routine clinical setting. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018;13:77. [crossref] [PubMed]
23.
Rispoli M, Nespoli MR, Salvi R, Corcione A, Buono S. One-lung ventilation in tracheostomized patients: Our experience with EZ-Blocker. J Clin Anaesth. 2016;31:288-90. [crossref] [PubMed]
24.
Campos JH, Musselman ED, Hanada S, Ueda K. Lung isolation techniques in patients with early-stage or long-term tracheostomy: A case series report of 70 cases and recommendations. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anaesth. 2019;33(2):433-39. [crossref] [PubMed]

DOI and Others

10.7860/JCDR/2021/49111.15122

Date of Submission: Feb 23, 2021
Date of Peer Review: Apr 21, 2021
Date of Acceptance: May 21, 2021
Date of Publishing: Jul 01, 2021

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. Yes

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Feb 26, 2021
• Manual Googling: May 20, 2021
• iThenticate Software: Jun 21, 2021 (8%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com