A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF ONE LUNG VENTILATION DURING THORACIC SURGERY COMPARING THE SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF LOW AND HIGH TIDAL VOLUME
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/18dffz94Keywords:
One lung ventilation, thoracic surgery, high tidal volume, low tidal volume.Abstract
Background: Postoperative pulmonary complications are common and highly morbid, particularly in thoracic surgery patients. Previous reports have demonstrated that protective ventilation can improve postoperative pulmonary function and reduce the incidence of complications, but the precise definition of protective ventilation remains elusive.
The aim: The aim of this study to show about one lung ventilation during thoracic surgery comparing the safety and efficacy of low and high tidal volume.
Methods: By the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020, this study was able to show that it met all of the requirements. This search approach, publications that came out between 2014 and 2024 were taken into account. Several different online reference sources, like Pubmed, SagePub, and Sciencedirect were used to do this. It was decided not to take into account review pieces, works that had already been published, or works that were only half done.
Result: Eight publications were found to be directly related to our ongoing systematic examination after a rigorous three-level screening approach. Subsequently, a comprehensive analysis of the complete text was conducted, and additional scrutiny was given to these articles.
Conclusion: Low tidal volumes (defined as less than 10 mL/kg) decreases pneumonia and the need for postoperative ventilatory support (invasive and non‐invasive).
References
Chacko B, Peter J V., Tharyan P, John G, Jeyaseelan L. Pressure-controlled versus volume-controlled ventilation for acute respiratory failure due to acute lung injury (ALI) or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;2017(6).
Kirov MY, Kuzkov V V. Protective ventilation from ICU to operating room: State of art and new horizons. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2020;73(3):179–93.
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 Anesth. 2018;32(1):297–301.
Cheng Q, He Z, Xue P, Xu Q, Zhu M, Chen W, et al. The disconnection technique with the use of a bronchial blocker for improving nonventilated lung collapse in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. J Thorac Dis. 2020;12(3):876–82.
Falzon D, Alston RP, Coley E, Montgomery K. Lung Isolation for Thoracic Surgery: From Inception to Evidence-Based. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth [Internet]. 2017;31(2):678–93. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2016.05.032
Clayton-Smith A, Bennett K, Alston RP, Adams G, Brown G, Hawthorne T, et al. A Comparison of the Efficacy and Adverse Effects of Double-Lumen Endobronchial Tubes and Bronchial Blockers in Thoracic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth [Internet]. 2015;29(4):955–66. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2014.11.017
Fielding-Singh V, Matthay MA, Calfee CS. Beyond low tidal volume ventilation: Treatment adjuncts for severe respiratory failure in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(11):1820–31.
Fernandez-Bustamante A, Klawitter J, Repine JE, Agazio A, Janocha AJ, Shah C, et al. Early Effect of Tidal Volume on Lung Injury Biomarkers in Surgical Patients with Healthy Lungs. Anesthesiology [Internet]. 2014Sep1;121(3):469–81.Available from: https://pubs.asahq.org/anesthesiology/article/121/3/469/12032/Early-Effect-of-Tidal-Volume-on-Lung-Injury
Colquhoun DA, Arbor A, Leis AM, Arbor A, Shanks AM, Arbor A, et al. HHS Public Access. 2022;134(4):562–76.
Liu X, Wang L. Comparison of the effects of different mechanical ventilation modes on the incidence of ventilation-associated pneumonia: a case study of patients undergoing thoracic surgery. Am J Transl Res [Internet].2022;14(12):8668–75.Availablefrom: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36628217%0Ahttp://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=PMC9827302
Kiss T, Wittenstein J, Becker C, Birr K, Cinnella G, Cohen E, et al. Correction to: Protective ventilation with high versus low positive end-expiratory pressure during one-lung ventilation for thoracic surgery (PROTHOR): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (Trials (2019) 20: 213 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-019-3208-8). Trials. 2019;20(1):1–20.
Kremer R, Aboud W, Haberfeld O, Armali M, Barak M. Differential lung ventilation for increased oxygenation during one lung ventilation for video assisted lung surgery. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019;14(1):4–9.
Li X, Yu L, Yang J, Fu M, Tan H. Comparison of early postoperative pulmonary complications between two-lung ventilation with artificial pneumothorax and one-lung ventilation with bronchial blockade in patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy: a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study. J Thorac Dis. 2024;16(3):1777–86.
Wang YP, Wei Y, Chen XY, Zhang LX, Zhou M, Wang J. Comparison between pressure-controlled ventilation with volume-guaranteed mode and volume-controlled mode in one-lung ventilation in infants undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. Transl Pediatr. 2021;10(10):2514–20.
Guay J, Ochroch EA, Kopp S. Intraoperative use of low volume ventilation to decrease postoperative mortality, mechanical ventilation, lengths of stay and lung injury in adults without acute lung injury. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;2018(7).
Wesley Templeton T, Miller SA, Lee LK, Kheterpal S, Mathis MR, Goenaga-Díaz EJ, et al. Hypoxemia in Young Children Undergoing One-lung Ventilation: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Anesthesiology. 2021;135(5):842–53.
Lagier D, Fischer F, Fornier W, Huynh TM, Cholley B, Guinard B, et al. Effect of open-lung vs conventional perioperative ventilation strategies on postoperative pulmonary complications after on-pump cardiac surgery: the PROVECS randomized clinical trial. Intensive Care Med. 2019;45(10):1401–12.
D’Antini D, Huhle R, Herrmann J, Sulemanji DS, Oto J, Raimondo P, et al. Respiratory System Mechanics During Low Versus High Positive End-Expiratory Pressure in Open Abdominal Surgery: A Substudy of PROVHILO Randomized Controlled Trial. Anesth Analg [Internet]. 2018 Jan;126(1):143–9. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/00000539-201801000-00026
O’Gara B, Talmor D. Perioperative lung protective ventilation. BMJ. 2018;362:k3030.
Mehrotra M, Jain A. Single-Lung Ventilation. 2024;1–10.
Pelosi P, Rocco PRM, Gama de Abreu M. Close down the lungs and keep them resting to minimize ventilator-induced lung injury. Crit Care. 2018;22(1).
An M zi, Xu C yun, Hou Y ru, Li Z ping, Gao T sheng, Zhou Q he. Effect of intravenous vs. inhaled penehyclidine on respiratory mechanics in patients during one-lung ventilation for thoracoscopic surgery: a prospective, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. BMC Pulm Med [Internet]. 2023;23(1):1–11. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-023-02653-8
Camilleri-Brennan J, Patel N, Mok S, Ryan D, Wilson B, Kotts M, et al. A systematic review of one-lung ventilation during thoracic surgery comparing the safety and efficacy of high and low tidal volumes. J CardiothoracSurg[Internet].2015;10(S1):A108.Availablefrom:http://www.cardiothoracicsurgery.org/content/10/S1/A108
Zhang XX, Song CT, Gao Z, Zhou B, Wang HB, Gong Q, et al. A comparison of non-intubated video-assisted thoracic surgery with spontaneous ventilation and intubated video-assisted thoracic surgery: A meta-analysis based on 14 randomized controlled trials. J Thorac Dis. 2021;13(3):1624–40.
Vibha G, Saluja V, Gouri ML, Guresh K, Prashant A, Rakhi M. Efficacy and safety of an open lung ventilation strategy with staircase recruitment followed by comparison on two different modes of ventilation, in moderate ARDS in cirrhosis: A pilot randomized trial. Can J Respir Ther. 2021;57(July):105–12.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Beny Prastyo, Salma Arini Putri (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Licensing
Ninety Nine Publication publishes articles under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This licensing allows for any use of the work, provided the original author(s) and source are credited, thereby facilitating the free exchange and use of research for the advancement of knowledge.
Detailed Licensing Terms
Attribution (BY): Users must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. Users may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses them or their use.
No Additional Restrictions: Users may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
