Initial Positioning of Left Sided Double Lumen Endobronchial Tubes Using Peak Inspiratory Pressures Difference Between Two Lungs
NCT ID: NCT01533012
Last Updated: 2019-01-10
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
NA
104 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2012-02-01
2012-10-25
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Effect of Lateral Positioning on Bronchial Cuff Pressure of Left-sided Double-lumen Endotracheal Tube During Thoracic Surgery
NCT03656406
Can Imaging Techniques Contribute to the Proper Insertion of Double-lumen Tubes?
NCT05133401
Effectiveness of Detachment of the Breathing Circuit on the Rate of DLT Malposition After Postural Change
NCT06182371
Effect of the Minimum Bronchial Cuff Volume of Left-sided Double-lumen Endotracheal Tube for One-lung Ventilation on the Change of the Bronchial Cuff Pressure During Lateral Positioning in Thoracic Surgery
NCT05222568
Measurement of Lung Water by Transpulmonary Thermodilution in Lung Transplanted Patients
NCT00834054
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
NON_RANDOMIZED
SEQUENTIAL
TREATMENT
DOUBLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Pressure difference
Peak inspiratory pressures difference between two lungs
Pressure difference
Peak inspiratory pressures difference between two lungs
FOB evaluation
FOB evaluation for the optimal position of tubes
No interventions assigned to this group
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Pressure difference
Peak inspiratory pressures difference between two lungs
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Use of double lumen tube
* Normal preoperative pulmonary function study
Exclusion Criteria
* Restrictive lung disease
* CAOD
* Unstable hemodynamic status
* Peak inspiratory pressure \> 30 mm Hg (Two lung ventilation)
20 Years
80 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Yonsei University
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine , Anesthesia and Pain Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine
Seoul, , South Korea
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Kim SH, Choi YS, Shin S, Cho JS, Nam DJ, Oh YJ. Positioning of double-lumen tubes based on the minimum peak inspiratory pressure difference between the right and left lungs in short patients: a prospective observational study. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2014 Mar;31(3):137-42. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e328364c3a7.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
4-2011-0619
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.