JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS
AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
A&A International Anesthesia Research Society
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Anesth Analg 2008; 107:342-343
© 2008 International Anesthesia Research Society
doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e318173e773
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Neustein, S. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Neustein, S. M.


LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Section Editor:
: Lawrence Saidman

What Is the Best Choice for Size of Double Lumen Tube?

Steven M. Neustein, MD

Department of Anesthesiology; The Mount Sinai Medical Center; steve.neustein{at}msnyuhealth.org

To the Editor:

Amar et al.1 successfully demonstrated no difference in either the incidence of hypoxemia, or malposition of double lumen tube (DLT), by routinely using a 35 Fr left DLT, compared with sizing the DLT according to patient height.

Using a larger size DLT will lessen the chance of a distal migration, resulting in a malposition and possible hypoxemia. However, if FOB is used, both of these problems can easily be checked for, lessening the need for using a larger tube. It does make sense that using a smaller than traditionally sized tube, with concomitant use of FOB, is a safe practice, and offers certain advantages. The study by Amar et al.1 may become important, in that the conventional method of selecting the largest size DLT is questioned.2 Before recommending widespread changes in practice, there should be a prospective randomized follow-up study, in which the individual practitioners use both techniques. I agree with the authors that further work is needed.

Footnotes

Dr. Amar does not wish to reply.

REFERENCES

  1. Amar D, Desiderio D, Heerdt PM, Kolker AC, Zhang H, Thaler HT. Practice patterns in choice of left double-lumen tube size for thoracic surgery. Anesth Analg 2008;106:379–83[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Brodsky J, Macario A, Mark J. Tracheal diameter predicts double-lumen tube size: a method for selecting left double-lumen tubes. Anesth Analg 1996;82:861–864[Web of Science][Medline]




This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Neustein, S. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Neustein, S. M.


Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2008 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999 HighWire Press