Intubation with Vivasight Double-Lumen Tube Versus Conventional Double-Lumen Tube in Adult Patients Undergoing Lung Resection: A Retrospective Analysis

OBJECTIVES: The present study was designed to compare outcomes in patients undergoing thoracic surgery using the VivaSight double-lumen tube (VDLT) or the conventional double-lumen tube (cDLT). DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of 100 patients scheduled for lung resection recruited over 21 consecutive months (January 2018–September 2019). SETTING: Single-center university teaching hospital investigation. PARTICIPANTS: A randomized sample of 100 patients who underwent lung resection during this period were selected for the purpose to compare 50 patients in the VDLT group and 50 in the cDLT group. INTERVENTIONS: After institutional review board approval, patients were chosen according to inclusion and exclusion criteria and we created a general database. The 100 patients have been chosen through a random process with the Microsoft Excel program (Microsoft 2018, Version 16.16.16). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary endpoint of the study was to analyze the need to use fiberoptic bronchoscopy to confirm the correct positioning of VDLT or the cDLT used for lung isolation. Secondary endpoints were respiratory parameters, admission to the intensive care unit, length of hospitalization, postoperative complications, readmission, and 30-day mortality rate. The use of fiberoptic bronchoscopy was lower in the VDLT group, and the size of the tube was smaller. The intraoperative respiratory and hemodynamics parameters were optimal. There were no other preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative differences between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The VDLT reduces the need for fiberoptic bronchoscopy, and it seems that a smaller size is needed. Finally, VDLT is cost-effective using disposable fiberscopes.