Limits...
Comparison of a tube-holder (Rescuefix) versus tape-tying for minimizing double-lumen tube displacement during lateral positioning in thoracic surgery: A prospective, randomized controlled study.

Byun SH, Kang SH, Kim JH, Ryu T, Kim BJ, Jung JY - Medicine (Baltimore) (2016)

Bottom Line: After lateral positioning, there were no significant differences in changes in tracheal and bronchial depths between the groups (tracheal depth 6.1 ± 4.4 mm [R group] and 9.1 ± 5.6 mm [T group], P = 0.058; bronchial depth 6.5 ± 4.4 mm [R group], and 8.5 ± 4.6 mm [T group], P = 0.132).Although the amount of change in tracheal and bronchial depths was not different between the groups, the need to reposition the DLT was significantly lower in the R group than in the T group (32% vs 68%, P = 0.016).This study demonstrated that use of Rescuefix did not reduce the amount of DLT displacement, but it did significantly lower the incidence of DLT repositioning compared with the tape-tying method.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, School of Medicine, Catholic University of Daegu, Daegu, Republic of Korea.

ABSTRACT

Background: Double-lumen endotracheal tubes (DLTs) are often displaced during change from the supine to the lateral decubitus position. The aim of this study was to determine whether Rescuefix, a recently developed tube-holder device, is more effective than the traditional tape-tying method for tube security during lateral positioning.

Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to a Rescuefix (R) group (n = 22) or a tape (T) group (n = 22). After intubation with a left-sided DLT and adjustment of the appropriate DLT position using a fiberoptic bronchoscope, the DLT was fixed firmly at the side of the mouth by either Rescuefix or Durapore tape. "Tracheal depth" (from the tracheal carina to the elbow connector of the DLT) and "bronchial depth" (from the left bronchial carina to the elbow connector of the DLT) were measured in the supine position using the fiberoptic bronchoscope. After positional change, tracheal and bronchial depths were measured as described above. As the primary endpoint, displacement of the DLT during positional change was evaluated by obtaining the difference in depths measured when the patient was in the supine and lateral decubitus positions. In addition, after lateral positioning of the patient, any requirement for repositioning the DLT was recorded.

Results: After lateral positioning, there were no significant differences in changes in tracheal and bronchial depths between the groups (tracheal depth 6.1 ± 4.4 mm [R group] and 9.1 ± 5.6 mm [T group], P = 0.058; bronchial depth 6.5 ± 4.4 mm [R group], and 8.5 ± 4.6 mm [T group], P = 0.132). Although the amount of change in tracheal and bronchial depths was not different between the groups, the need to reposition the DLT was significantly lower in the R group than in the T group (32% vs 68%, P = 0.016).

Conclusion: This study demonstrated that use of Rescuefix did not reduce the amount of DLT displacement, but it did significantly lower the incidence of DLT repositioning compared with the tape-tying method. Therefore, Rescuefix appears to be an effective alternative to minimizing DLT displacement during lateral positioning in thoracic surgery.

Trial registration: http://cris.nih.go.kr identifier: KCT0001949.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Incidence of DLT repositioning due to inappropriate position. Data are expressed as the number of patients (%). ∗P < 0.05 when compared between groups. DLT = double-lumen endotracheal tube, R group = Rescuefix group, T group = tape group.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4979847&req=5

Figure 5: Incidence of DLT repositioning due to inappropriate position. Data are expressed as the number of patients (%). ∗P < 0.05 when compared between groups. DLT = double-lumen endotracheal tube, R group = Rescuefix group, T group = tape group.

Mentions: After lateral positioning, displacement of the tracheal lumen and bronchial lumen of the DLT was less in the R group than in the T group (Fig. 4). However, there were no significant differences in changes in tracheal depth and bronchial depth between the 2 groups (change of tracheal depth, 6.1 ± 4.4 mm vs 9.1 ± 5.6 mm, P = 0.058; change of bronchial depth, 6.5 ± 4.4 mm vs 8.5 ± 4.6 mm, P = 0.132). Despite the lack of a significant difference in the amount of change in these depths, the incidence of actual relocation of the DLT due to inappropriate positioning was significantly lower in the R group than in the T group (32% vs 68%, P = 0.016; Fig. 5). However, regardless of tube fixation type, there were no significant differences in changes of tracheal depth and bronchial depth or the incidence of repositioning of the DLT between the right lateral decubitus (RLD) and left lateral decubitus (LLD) position (Table 2).


Comparison of a tube-holder (Rescuefix) versus tape-tying for minimizing double-lumen tube displacement during lateral positioning in thoracic surgery: A prospective, randomized controlled study.

Byun SH, Kang SH, Kim JH, Ryu T, Kim BJ, Jung JY - Medicine (Baltimore) (2016)

Incidence of DLT repositioning due to inappropriate position. Data are expressed as the number of patients (%). ∗P < 0.05 when compared between groups. DLT = double-lumen endotracheal tube, R group = Rescuefix group, T group = tape group.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4979847&req=5

Figure 5: Incidence of DLT repositioning due to inappropriate position. Data are expressed as the number of patients (%). ∗P < 0.05 when compared between groups. DLT = double-lumen endotracheal tube, R group = Rescuefix group, T group = tape group.
Mentions: After lateral positioning, displacement of the tracheal lumen and bronchial lumen of the DLT was less in the R group than in the T group (Fig. 4). However, there were no significant differences in changes in tracheal depth and bronchial depth between the 2 groups (change of tracheal depth, 6.1 ± 4.4 mm vs 9.1 ± 5.6 mm, P = 0.058; change of bronchial depth, 6.5 ± 4.4 mm vs 8.5 ± 4.6 mm, P = 0.132). Despite the lack of a significant difference in the amount of change in these depths, the incidence of actual relocation of the DLT due to inappropriate positioning was significantly lower in the R group than in the T group (32% vs 68%, P = 0.016; Fig. 5). However, regardless of tube fixation type, there were no significant differences in changes of tracheal depth and bronchial depth or the incidence of repositioning of the DLT between the right lateral decubitus (RLD) and left lateral decubitus (LLD) position (Table 2).

Bottom Line: After lateral positioning, there were no significant differences in changes in tracheal and bronchial depths between the groups (tracheal depth 6.1 ± 4.4 mm [R group] and 9.1 ± 5.6 mm [T group], P = 0.058; bronchial depth 6.5 ± 4.4 mm [R group], and 8.5 ± 4.6 mm [T group], P = 0.132).Although the amount of change in tracheal and bronchial depths was not different between the groups, the need to reposition the DLT was significantly lower in the R group than in the T group (32% vs 68%, P = 0.016).This study demonstrated that use of Rescuefix did not reduce the amount of DLT displacement, but it did significantly lower the incidence of DLT repositioning compared with the tape-tying method.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, School of Medicine, Catholic University of Daegu, Daegu, Republic of Korea.

ABSTRACT

Background: Double-lumen endotracheal tubes (DLTs) are often displaced during change from the supine to the lateral decubitus position. The aim of this study was to determine whether Rescuefix, a recently developed tube-holder device, is more effective than the traditional tape-tying method for tube security during lateral positioning.

Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to a Rescuefix (R) group (n = 22) or a tape (T) group (n = 22). After intubation with a left-sided DLT and adjustment of the appropriate DLT position using a fiberoptic bronchoscope, the DLT was fixed firmly at the side of the mouth by either Rescuefix or Durapore tape. "Tracheal depth" (from the tracheal carina to the elbow connector of the DLT) and "bronchial depth" (from the left bronchial carina to the elbow connector of the DLT) were measured in the supine position using the fiberoptic bronchoscope. After positional change, tracheal and bronchial depths were measured as described above. As the primary endpoint, displacement of the DLT during positional change was evaluated by obtaining the difference in depths measured when the patient was in the supine and lateral decubitus positions. In addition, after lateral positioning of the patient, any requirement for repositioning the DLT was recorded.

Results: After lateral positioning, there were no significant differences in changes in tracheal and bronchial depths between the groups (tracheal depth 6.1 ± 4.4 mm [R group] and 9.1 ± 5.6 mm [T group], P = 0.058; bronchial depth 6.5 ± 4.4 mm [R group], and 8.5 ± 4.6 mm [T group], P = 0.132). Although the amount of change in tracheal and bronchial depths was not different between the groups, the need to reposition the DLT was significantly lower in the R group than in the T group (32% vs 68%, P = 0.016).

Conclusion: This study demonstrated that use of Rescuefix did not reduce the amount of DLT displacement, but it did significantly lower the incidence of DLT repositioning compared with the tape-tying method. Therefore, Rescuefix appears to be an effective alternative to minimizing DLT displacement during lateral positioning in thoracic surgery.

Trial registration: http://cris.nih.go.kr identifier: KCT0001949.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus