支气管阻塞管在婴幼儿单肺通气中的应用

目的 评估5F Arndt支气管阻塞管在婴幼儿单腔气管导管外单肺通气（one-lung ventilation, OLV）的可行性和安全性。 方法 回顾性分析2岁以内需OLV的胸科手术患儿22例。所有患儿均在Cook导丝引导下置入5F Arndt支气管阻塞管,再置入小于标准型号0.5F气管导管,通过阻塞管的转化接头连接麻醉机维持通气的同时,在纤维支气管镜明视下定位阻塞管到目标支气管,分析支气管阻塞管移位例数、OLV前后气道压、肺萎陷的程度来评价支气管阻塞管的效果。 结果 22例患儿,年龄4个月~2岁,体重5.6~11.0 kg,20例患儿获得满意的单肺隔离。1例患儿OLV后SpO2下降。2例患儿术中出现支气管阻塞管移位,OLV后气道压力明显增高（P〈0.05）。 结论 Arndt支气管阻塞管可用于婴幼儿OLV肺隔离,但存在移位安全隐患。     

Arndt支气管阻塞导管和双腔支气管导管单肺通气效果的比较

支气管阻塞导管是一项单肺通气技术,国内已有应用Amdt支气管阻塞导管行单肺通气的报道~([1]).本研究在开胸手术病人使用Arndt支气管阻塞导管或左支双腔支气管导管行单肺通气,对插管复杂程度、单肺通气有效性、肺萎陷和术野显露程度、体位改变及手术操作对导管位置的影响等方面进行比较.     

胸腔镜肺大泡切除术行单肺气道管理盲插支气管封堵器的应用

目的探讨盲插支气管封堵器在胸腔镜肺大泡切除术中行单肺通气的可行性。方法选择2017年10月～2019年3月于我院行胸腔镜肺大泡切除术患者50例,随机分为支气管封堵器组(BOD组)和双腔支气管组(DLT组),每组25例;BOD组患者插入单腔气管导管和Coopdech支气管封堵器实现单肺通气,DLT组患者插入双腔气管导管实现单肺通气。记录并比较两组患者麻醉诱导前(T0)、麻醉诱导后(T1)、插管即刻(T2)、手术开始后30 min(T3)和拔管即刻(T4)各时间点的血流动力学变化,插管定位时间和一次成功率,单肺通气期间气道峰压(Ppeak)、动脉血氧分压(PaO_2)、动脉血二氧化碳分压(PaCO_2)和pH,肺萎陷质量评分(LCS),术后咽喉疼痛发生率。结果盲插支气管封堵器和双腔气管导管均可完成单肺通气要求。两组在插管即刻(T2)和拔管即刻(T4)的MAP及HR均较T1时明显升高(P0.05),且DLT组MAP及HR较BOD组升高明显,差异均具有统计学意义(P0.05)。单肺通气10 min和30 min后两组患者Ppeak均升高,但随着时间推移,DLT组明显高于BOD组;两组患者PaO_2均降低,但DLT组明显低于BOD组,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。两组患者PaCO_2和pH比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。BOD组插管置入定位时间明显短于DLT组,一次插管成功率优于DLT组,术后咽痛明显低于DLT组,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。两组肺萎陷LCS评分优良率比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论在胸腔镜肺大泡切除术中,盲插支气管封堵器单肺通气效果良好,对血流动力学影响小、插管成功率高、定位时间短、术后咽喉损伤小,是一种简单实用的单肺通气方法。     

胸腔镜下房颤射频消融术中不同肺隔离措施的临床效果

目的比较左侧型双腔导管与支气管封堵器在胸腔镜下房颤射频消融术中的临床效果和安全性。方法选择拟行全麻下射频消融术的房颤患者48例,男26例,女22例,年龄45~65岁,ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级,随机分为双腔导管组(A组)和支气管封堵器组(B组),每组24例。记录插管前、定位准确即刻的MAP和HR;记录两组插管时间和单肺通气5min时的气道峰压(Ppeak);评估肺萎陷及手术视野暴露效果;记录拔管呛咳、声音嘶哑和咽喉痛等不良反应的发生情况。结果两组插管时间差异无统计学意义;与插管前比较,定位准确即刻两组MAP明显升高,HR明显加快,且A组明显高于和快于B组(P0.05)。左侧单肺通气时,A组Ppeak明显高于B组(P0.05),右上肺萎陷效果明显优于B组(P0.05);右侧单肺通气时,两组Ppeak差异无统计学意义。A组拔管呛咳、声音嘶哑和咽喉痛发生率明显高于B组(P0.05)。结论左侧型双腔导管与支气管封堵器均能满足胸腔镜下房颤射频消融术的手术需求,左侧型双腔导管肺隔离效果优于支气管封堵器,但其引起的插管应激反应更重,拔管呛咳、声音嘶哑和咽喉痛的发生率更高。     

Ⅰ-gel喉罩联合Coopdech支气管封堵器在胸科手术中的应用

目的 探讨Ⅰ-gel喉罩联合Coopdech支气管封堵器用于胸科手术中的安全性和可行性.方法 选择60例全麻下行开胸手术患者,年龄20～65岁,ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级,随机分为两组,Ⅰ-gel喉罩联合Coopdech支气管封堵器组(Ⅰ组)和气管导管联合Coopdech支气管封堵器组(T组).分别记录患者麻醉诱导前(T0)、麻醉诱导后(T1)、插入喉罩或气管导管即刻(T2)、手术结束时(T3)、拔除喉罩或气管导管即刻(T4)的MAP、HR;记录拔除喉罩或气管导管时间及苏醒时间,记录两组肺萎陷评分,记录两组单肺通气前、中及后的气道峰压(P1、P2和P3);记录术后肺不张以及呛咳、咽喉疼痛、声音嘶哑等的发生情况.结果 与T组比较,T2、T4时Ⅰ组MAP明显降低,HR明显减慢(P＜0.05);Ⅰ组拔管时间和苏醒时间明显短于T组(P＜0.05),肺萎陷评分两组差异无统计学意义;术后两组均无肺不张;与T组比较,Ⅰ组P1、P2和P3差异无统计学意义,但术后呛咳、咽喉疼痛、声音嘶哑等不良反应明显减少(P＜0.05).结论Ⅰ-gel喉罩联合Coopdech支气管封堵器用于胸科单肺通气时,气道密封性可靠,通气效果好.     

单腔气管导管和呼吸暂停在胸腔镜下胸交感神经干切断术的应用

目的 观察单腔气管导管插管和呼吸暂停在胸腔镜下胸交感神经干切断术中应用的安全性和经济性.方法 40例手汗症患者在电视胸腔镜下行双侧T2～T4交感神经干切断术.根据气管插管麻醉的不同分为单腔气管捕管组(A组)和双腔气管插管组(B组),每组20例.分别于右侧胸切皮前(T1)、右侧膨肺前(T2)、右侧膨肺后正常机械通气时(T3)、左侧膨肺前(T4)、左侧膨肺后正常机械通气时(T5)、麻醉结束时(T6)记录患者NBP、HR,SpO2、PErCO2及手术侧肺萎陷情况、暂停通气(或单肺通气)时间、相关并发症和麻醉费用情况.结果 围术期两组患者SBP、DBP、HR均在正常范罔内,两组SpO2均能维持在98%以上.T3、T5时A组PErCO2较T1,时明显升高(P<0.01),并显著高于B组(P<0.01).A组手术侧肺萎陷理想,手术野暴露满意,平均暂停通气时间为7.3 min,最长为16 min.B组患者双腔气管导管插管均成功,有7例肺萎陷不理想.术后第1天A组声音嘶哑、咽喉痛的发生率较B组略低.A组麻醉费用显著低于B组(P<0.01).结论 单腔气管导管麻醉和呼吸暂停在胸腔镜下胸交感神经干切断术中应用具有插管快速、安全、并发症少和花费少的优势.     

二氧化碳人工气胸与支气管封堵器用于胸腹腔镜食管癌根治术的比较

目的比较二氧化碳人工气胸双肺通气和支气管封堵器单肺通气对胸腹腔镜食管癌根治术患者的影响。方法胸腹腔镜食管癌根治术患者97例,男62例,女35例,年龄50～75岁,BMI 18～29kg/m~2,ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级,随机分为两组:二氧化碳人工气胸双肺通气组(AP组,n=50)和支气管封堵器单肺通气组(BB组,n=47)。记录拔管时间和胸腔操作开始后15 min肺萎陷评分。记录胸腔操作前双肺通气时(T_0)、胸腔操作开始后10 min(T_1)、30 min(T_2)、60 min(T_3)和胸腔操作结束后10 min(T_4)的MAP、CVP、气道峰压(Ppeak)、PaO_2、PaCO_2,计算死腔率(V_D/V_T)和分流率(Qs/Qt),同时记录甲氧明推注例数和去甲肾上腺素泵注例数和新发心律失常例数。术中提取食管肌层组织RNA后检测一氧化氮合酶3基因(NOS3)的转录水平。记录术后并发症的发生情况。结果 BB组拔管时间明显短于AP组(P0.05),肺萎陷评分明显低于AP组(P0.05)。T_1—T_3时AP组MAP明显低于BB组(P0.05),CVP明显高于BB组(P0.05)。T_2—T_4时AP组PaCO_2明显高于BB组(P0.05)。T_1—T_3时AP组V_D/V_T明显高于BB组(P0.05)。AP组甲氧明推注例数、去甲肾上腺素泵注例数明显多于BB组,新发心律失常发生率明显高于BB组(P0.05)。BB组NOS3的转录水平是AP组的3.48倍(P0.05)。两组术后并发症发生率差异无统计学意义。结论与二氧化碳人工气胸双肺通气比较,支气管封堵器单肺通气更有利于早期拔管和术野暴露,不失为胸腹腔镜食管癌根治术患者更好的术中气道管理方案。     

Coopdech支气管封堵器在围术期的安全应用

目的对比Coopdech支气管封堵器与双腔气管导管用于胸外科手术的安全性。方法选择术中需行单肺通气的胸外科手术患者60例,随机分为两组各30例。A组用Coopdech支气管封堵器,普通气管导管插管固定后从中置入支气管封堵器至目标肺侧支气管;B组常规插入双腔气管导管,用听诊器听诊确定导管位置并固定。观察2组患者(1)单肺通气时肺萎陷质量和外科术野暴露程度.(2)围术期声音嘶哑和咽喉痛的评估。结果两组术侧肺萎陷及手术视野暴露效果优良率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);双腔支气管组术后声带损伤、声音嘶哑及咽喉疼痛的发生率较封堵器组显着升高(P<0.05)。结论双腔气管导管和封堵支气管导管在胸外科手术行单肺通气中的应用均安全有效,但是应用Coopdech封堵器操作简便且可减少患者术后声带损伤、声音嘶哑及咽喉疼痛的发生率,在其适应证范围内可以优先选用Coopdech支气管封堵器。     

支气管封堵器单肺通气在新生儿电视胸腔镜手术中的应用

目的探讨支气管封堵器（bronchial blocker,BB）行单肺通气（one lung ventilation,OLV）在新生儿电视胸腔镜手术（video-assisted thoracoscopicsugery,VATS）中应用的有效性和安全性。方法择期行VATS的患儿60例,按OLV方法完全随机平均分为支气管插管组（A组）和BB组（B组）,每组30例。比较两组患儿术前双肺通气时（T0）、OLV 10min（T1）、肺萎陷即刻（T2）、肺萎陷后30min（T3）、肺萎陷后60min（T4）、恢复双肺通气后10min（T5）和术毕6h（T6）、术毕12h（T7）的SpO2、动脉血氧分压（arterial blood partial pressure of oxygen, PaO2）、PET CO2、动脉血二氧化碳分压（arterial blood partial pressure of carbondioxide, PaCO2）、乳酸水平及气道压变化情况,比较两组患儿OLV情况和围术期情况。结果两组息儿气道压从T1开始升高,T4达到最高,T4时A组（34．8±4．9）cmH2O（1cmH2O=0．098kPa）较B组（30．0±4．3）cmH2O更为显著（P〈0．05）;T4时两组患儿SpO2和PaO2下降至最低,两组间比较差异无统计学意义（p〉0．05）;T4时两组患儿PETCO2和PaCO2升至最高,A组较B组更为显著（P〈0．05）;两组患儿乳酸水平呈升高趋势,但各时点差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。B组肺萎陷效果、术中出血量、手术时间、拔管时间、监护室时间和气管黏膜损伤情况均显著优于A组（P〈0．05）。结论BB行OLV可为新生儿VATS提供充分的通气和良好的肺萎陷。     

小儿胸腔镜手术中选择性肺叶支气管阻断与主支气管阻断的比较：一项回顾性队列研究

目的探究小儿胸腔镜手术中选择性肺叶支气管阻断与主支气管阻断的差异。方法采取回顾性队列研究, 分析2019年12月至2022年12月在河南省儿童医院郑州儿童医院收治的接受胸腔镜手术治疗的150例患儿临床资料, 其中80例采用选择性肺叶支气管阻断作为研究组, 70例行常规主支气管阻断的患儿作为对照组。对比两组患儿一般资料中年龄、性别、体质量、手术时间等资料, 比较两组低氧血症、肺塌陷程度、肺不张、支气管阻断器移位次数, 对比两组不同时点[单肺通气(OLV)前(T1)、OLV 10 min后(T2)、OLV结束后10 min(T3)]心率(HR)、平均动脉压(MAP)、肺塌陷程度、气道压力(PAW)、肺泡动脉氧分压(AaDO2)水平差异。结果研究组患儿低氧血症、支气管阻断器移位发生率及肺不张情况比较, 组间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。重复测量方差结果表明, 两组患儿不同时点HR、MAP水平以时间因素为源的主体间效应比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。重复测量方差结果表明, 两组患儿不同时点PAW、AaDO2水平以时间因素为源、以组别为源的主体间效应及以时间与组别交互为源的...     

Extraluminal use of the Arndt pediatric endobron-chial blocker in an infant: a case report

PURPOSE: Attaining lung isolation in the infant undergoing thoracic anesthesia can be challenging for the anesthesiologist. We describe a novel approach to performing lung isolation in an infant undergoing thoracotomy for lobectomy using an Arndt pediatric endobronchial blocker via an extraluminal technique. CLINICAL FEATURES: Lung isolation in an infant was achieved through the use of an Arndt pediatric endobronchial blocker placed externally to an endotracheal tube. The blocker's placement was facilitated through the use of a pediatric fibreoptic brochoscope placed through the guidewire of the extraluminally placed bronchial blocker. CONCLUSION: This novel technique may provide an easier and more reliable method of attaining single lung ventilation in infants and small children.     

Extraluminal Placement of a Bronchial Blocker Compared with Carbon Dioxide Artificial Pneumothorax in Infants Undergoing Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery

Objective: To investigate the safety and effectiveness of extraluminal placement of a bronchial blocker compared with carbon dioxide (CO₂) artificial pneumothorax in infants undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS).Methods: The study involved 33 infants (group A) who underwent one-lung ventilation (OLV) with extraluminal placement of a bronchial blocker and 35 other infants (group B) who underwent CO₂ artificial pneumothorax. Clinical characteristics, the degree of lung collapse, and complications were compared.Results: The degree of lung collapse in group A was significantly higher than that in group B at T2 and T3. The mean arterial pressure (MAP) of group B was significantly lower than that of group A at 10 min and 30 min after OLV. The partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO₂) of group B was significantly higher than that of group A at 30 min after OLV. The incidence of hypotension in group B was higher than that in group A.Conclusion: Compared with CO₂ artificial pneumothorax, extraluminal placement of a bronchial blocker is associated with a better degree of lung collapse, fewer episodes of hypotension, and lower PaCO₂ accumulation during OLV in infants undergoing VATS.     

Fluoroscopic guidance of Arndt endobronchial blocker placement for single-lung ventilation in small children

Background: Thoracoscopic surgery may require single-lung ventilation (SLV) in infants and small children. A variety of balloon-tipped endobronchial blockers exist but the placement is technically challenging if the size of the tracheal tube does not allow the simultaneous passage of the fibreoptic scope and the endobronchial blocker. This report describes a technique for endobronchial blocker insertion using fluoroscopic guidance in children undergoing SLV.
Methods: After approval from the local Medical Ethics Committee and parental consent, 18 patients aged 2 years or younger scheduled for thoracic surgery requiring SLV were prospectively included. Following induction of anesthesia, a 5 Fr endobronchial blocker (Cook^® Arndt endobronchial blocker) was inserted first into the trachea under direct laryngoscopy. Correct placement in the main bronchus was assessed by fluoroscopy and tracheal intubation next to the endobronchial blocker. Optimal position and balloon inflation was verified using a fibreoptic scope. The duration and number of insertion attempts as well as age, weight and size of the tracheal tube were recorded.
Results: Eighteen patients were studied. Median (range) age and weight were 12 (0.2–24) months and 11.2 (4–15) kg, respectively. SLV was successfully achieved in all patients using a 5 Fr endobronchial blocker outside a 3.5–4.5 mm ID tracheal tube within 11.2 (±2.2) min. No side effects were observed during the procedure.
Conclusion: Fluoroscopic-guided insertion of extraluminal endobronchial blocker is an effective and reliable tool to place Arndt endobronchial blockers in small children.     

The effectiveness of ARNDT endobronchial blockers in paediatric scoliosis surgery

Introduction: Although described for paediatric thoracic surgery (1), there is little data on the use of the Arndt endobronchial blocker in paediatric spinal deformity surgery. We present its successful application in these patients. Methods: Thirteen patients undergoing surgical correction of scoliosis involving a lateral thoracotomy anterior approach were suitable for lung isolation using an Arndt endobronchial blocker. Placement was via an armoured tracheal tube; the endobronchial blockers were 5 or 9 FG with low‐volume low‐pressure cuffs (spherical or elliptical balloons). Placement was by a paediatric anaesthetist trained in paediatric bronchoscopy and required a 2.2 or a 2.8 mm paediatric fibreoptic bronchoscope. Results: Patient ages ranged from 18 months to 18 years and weights from 9 kg to 71 kg. All had idiopathic or congenital scoliosis; one patient underwent a VEPTR procedure. In all 13 patients, placement was easily and promptly achieved with no incorrect placements, displacements (including after patient repositioning), or failures to isolate one lung. Median time of insertion was 5 min (with checks), speed of insertion increasing as experience improved. Inflation times for the blocker balloon ranged from 1.5 h to 5 h. There was no airway trauma; direct bronchial inspection revealed local erythema only. Saturations were supported with 5 cm CPAP to the isolated lung and one‐lung ventilation was well tolerated in all but one patient with acceptable airway pressures (<35 cm water); this one patient required partial lung inflation (blocker in place, balloon not inflated) to maintain adequate saturations and airway pressures. The surgical field was excellent in all cases. Discussion: Complex paediatric spinal surgery may require lung collapse to improve spinal access, and is traditionally achieved using a double‐lumen tracheal tube. Difficulties can arise as the children are often small for age with potentially distorted airway anatomy and there are a limited number of double lumen tube sizes. This can lead to inadequate isolation, a poor surgical field, endobronchial cuff herniation or obstruction of left upper lobe (tube too small or too long). The careful use of the Arndt endobronchial blocker avoids all these problems and enables easy reliable and safe isolation. Potential complications include malposition, migration, and direct airway trauma, allied to the usual complications of one lung anaesthesia. In our series, there were no complications relating to its use and insertion was quick and straightforward. Conclusions: Lung isolation with the Arndt endobronchial blocker is both safe and very effective in paediatric spinal deformity surgery. Reference 1 Wald SH, Mahajan A, Kaplan MB et al. Experience with the Arndt paediatric bronchial blocker. Br J Anaesth 2005; 94 : 92–94.     

A comparison of a left-sided Broncho-Cath with the torque control blocker univent and the wire-guided blocker

Lung isolation can be accomplished in two ways: the first, a double-lumen endotracheal tube (DLT) and the second, a bronchial blocker (Univent or Arndt blocker). Previous studies have found that the DLT and the Univent are comparable when providing lung isolation. A new bronchial blocker, the wire-guided endobronchial blocker (Arndt blocker), has been introduced. However, there is no study to report its effectiveness with lung isolation during elective thoracic surgical cases. Therefore, we designed a prospective, randomized trial to compare the effectiveness of lung isolation among the 3 endotracheal tubes: the left-sided DLT Broncho-Cath Group A (n = 16 patients), the torque control blocker Univent Group B (n = 16 patients), and the wire-guided Arndt blocker Group C (n = 32 patients). The following variables were recorded: 1) time to initially position the assigned tube, 2) frequency of malpositions, 3) frequency of use of fiberoptic bronchoscope, 4) overall surgical exposure, and 5) tube acquisition cost. The Arndt blocker took longer to place (3:34 min/s) compared with the other 2 groups: the DLT group (2:08 min/s) or the Univent group (2:38 min/s) (P < 0.0004). There was no statistical difference in tube malpositions among the three groups: two for the DLT group, four for the Univent group, and nine in the Arndt group. Excluding the time for tube placement, the Arndt group also took longer for the lung to collapse (26:02 min/s), compared with the DLT group (17:54 min/s) or Univent group (19:28 min/s) (P < 0.0060). Furthermore, unlike the other two groups, the majority of the Arndt patients required suction to achieve lung collapse. Once lung isolation was achieved, overall surgical exposure was rated excellent for the three groups. Acquisition cost for the DLT group was $1663.20 (21 tubes opened), $2329.00 for the Univent group (17 tubes opened), and $3567.00 for the Arndt group (33 wire-guided blockers opened). This study demonstrates that the Arndt blocker takes longer to position and longer to deflate the isolated lung. For elective thoracic surgical cases, once the lung was isolated, the management seemed to be similar for all three tube groups. IMPLICATIONS: We compared the latest design of double-lumen tubes Broncho-Cath, Univent, and Arndt blockers during lung isolation. Our results show that the Arndt blocker takes longer to position and longer to deflate the isolated lung. Once the lung was isolated, the management seemed to be similar for all three devices.     

High-frequency jet ventilation using the Arndt bronchial blocker for refractory hypoxemia during one-lung ventilation in a myasthenic patient with asthma

A novel method in the management of refractory severe hypoxemia during one-lung ventilation (OLV) in a patient who presented with myasthenia gravis, asthma, a symptomatic mediastinal mass, hiatal hernia, and a moderate pericardial effusion is presented. The patient was scheduled for excision of a large anterior mediastinal mass and creation of a pericardial window through a left thoracotomy. One-lung ventilation was achieved using an Arndt bronchial blocker. High-frequency jet ventilation (HFJV) was applied to the surgical nondependent lung through the lumen of the Arndt endobronchial blocker with titration of positive end-expiratory pressure to the dependent lung. Oxygenation improved significantly. The use of HFJV through the Arndt blocker offers an effective method for treatment of refractory hypoxemia during OLV.     

One-lung ventilation in infants and small children: blood gas values

Purpose

We investigated one-lung ventilation (OLV) in pediatric patients under 10?kg. The feasibility of OLV using either Arndt endobronchial blocker (AEB) or mainstem intubation technique is analyzed. Arterial blood gases (ABG) monitored throughout the procedures are presented.

Methods

Following IRB approval, a retrospective chart review was conducted on 9 patients ≤6?months of age and 2 patients ≥12?months of age undergoing lung resections or aortic coarctations. For right thoracotomy, a conventional, cuffed, endotracheal tube (ETT) was inserted and guided into the left mainstem bronchus with a bronchoscope and the left lung was ventilated. For left thoracotomy, an AEB was inserted into the trachea 2?cm past the vocal cords and an ETT was placed through the cords adjacent to the blockers (extraluminal). A bronchoscope was then inserted through the ETT to visualize and manipulate the blocker into the left mainstem bronchus. The blocker cuff was inflated slowly under direct vision while the ETT continued to ventilate the right, dependent lung. ABG values were collected intraoperatively in all cases.

Results

One-lung ventilation could be accomplished within 15?min in all cases, and lung isolation was successful in all patients. All patients were extubated within 12?h of surgery and had an uneventful recovery. ABG values revealed modest arterial acidosis and hypercarbia and mild acute ventilatory insufficiency.

Conclusion

The use of extraluminal AEB or mainstem intubation for OLV can be successfully completed in infants weighing less than 10?kg. OLV may induce acute respiratory pathology; therefore we recommend routine intraoperative ABG monitoring for pediatric patients.     

An update on bronchial blockers during lung separation techniques in adults

Techniques for one-lung ventilation (OLV) can be accomplished in two ways: The first involves the use of a double-lumen endotracheal tube (DLT). The second involves blockade of a mainstem bronchus (bronchial blockers). Bronchial blockade technology is on the rise, and in some specific clinical situations (e.g., management of the difficult airway during OLV or selective lobar blockade) it can offer more as an alternative to achieve OLV in adults. Special emphasis on newer information for the use of Fogarty embolectomy catheter as a bronchial blocker, the torque control blocker Univent, and the wire-guided endobronchial blocker (Arndt blocker) is included. Also this review describes placement, positioning, complications, ventilation modalities, and airflow resistances of all three bronchial blockers. Finally, the bronchial blockers can be used in many cases that require OLV, taking into consideration that bronchial blockers require longer time for placement, assisted suction to expedite lung collapse, and the use of fiberoptic bronchoscopy. The current use of bronchial blockers, supported by scientific evidence, dictates that bronchial blockers should be available in any service that performs lung separation techniques.     

选择性肺叶隔离对胸科手术患者氧合及细胞因子的影响

目的 探讨选择性肺叶隔离技术对胸科手术患者m清及支气管肺泡灌洗液中IL-6、TNF-α浓度及氧合作用的影响.方法 选择限期行食管癌根治术或肺癌行肺叶切除术的患者30例,随机分为选择性肺叶隔离组(S组)和全肺萎陷单肺通气组(T组)各15例.丙泊酚、瑞芬太尼靶控输注诱导及维持麻醉,插入ID8.0 mm单腔气管导管后,将9Fr COOPDECH支气管阴塞器在纤维支气管镜引导下放置,S组将套囊置入目标肺叶支气管人口下方1 cm,T组将套囊置入主支气管入口下方1.5cm～2 cm.于侧卧位双肺通气15 min(T1)、单肺通气或肺叶隔离30 min(T2)、单肺通气或肺叶隔离60 min(T3)和恢复双肺通气15 min(T4)行动脉血气分析并记录气道峰压,于T1和T4时间点收集动脉血和支气管肺泡灌洗液,ELISA法测定IL-6、TNF-α的浓度.结果 单肺通气开始后两组气道压较单肺通气前明显升高(F=215.746,P<0.05),T组升高程度大于S组(F=53.798,P<0.01).单肺通气开始后两组氧合指数均下降,S组下降程度小于T组(F=13.747,P<0.05).单肺通气结束后(T4)两组血清及支气管肺泡灌洗液中IL-6、TNF-α的浓度均明显增加,S组IL-6、TNF-α的浓度均低于T组(IL-6:F=1503.734,P<0.01;TNF-α:F=1423.486,P<0.05).两组术后并发症发生率差异无统计学意义.结论 胸科手术选择性肺叶隔离通气方式能改善机体氧合,减少患者体内促炎性因子的释放.