Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New Background Recently, several retrospective studies have suggested that pulmonary complication is related with driving pressure more than any other ventilatory parameter. Thus, the authors compared driving pressure–guided ventilation with conventional protective ventilation in thoracic surgery, where lung protection is of the utmost importance. The authors hypothesized that driving pressure–guided ventilation decreases postoperative pulmonary complications more than conventional protective ventilation. Methods In this double-blind, randomized, controlled study, 292 patients scheduled for elective thoracic surgery were included in the analysis. The protective ventilation group (n = 147) received conventional protective ventilation during one-lung ventilation: tidal volume 6 ml/kg of ideal body weight, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) 5 cm H2O, and recruitment maneuver. The driving pressure group (n = 145) received the same tidal volume and recruitment, but with individualized PEEP which produces the lowest driving pressure (plateau pressure–PEEP) during one-lung ventilation. The primary outcome was postoperative pulmonary complications based on the Melbourne Group Scale (at least 4) until postoperative day 3. Results Melbourne Group Scale of at least 4 occurred in 8 of 145 patients (5.5%) in the driving pressure group, as compared with 18 of 147 (12.2%) in the protective ventilation group (P = 0.047, odds ratio 0.42; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.99). The number of patients who developed pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome was less in the driving pressure group than in the protective ventilation group (10/145 [6.9%] vs. 22/147 [15.0%], P = 0.028, odds ratio 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.92). Conclusions Application of driving pressure–guided ventilation during one-lung ventilation was associated with a lower incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications compared with conventional protective ventilation in thoracic surgery.

Background: Laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion provokes fewer stress responses than endotracheal intubation. This study aimed to evaluate the LMA Protector for assessing improvements in intraoperative hemodynamic stability and to reduce postoperative discomfort compared with endotracheal intubation in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods: Fifty-six patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy while under sevoflurane-based general anesthesia were randomly allocated to airway management using LMA (LMA group) or endotracheal tube (ETT group). Heart rate, blood pressure, and peak airway pressure were recorded before and after carboperitoneum. Postoperative pain and analgesic requirements were assessed, in addition to nausea, hoarseness, dysphonia, and sore throat during the first 1 hour postoperatively and until postoperative day 1. Results: All patients underwent successful LMA or ETT placement within 2 attempts. There was no difference in highest mean (SD) peak airway pressure during carboperitoneum between the LMA and ETT groups (17.7 [2.8] mm Hg vs 19.1 [3.8] mm Hg, P = .159, respectively). The incidence of high systolic blood pressure and bradycardia was higher in the LMA group. The highest pain scores 1 hour postoperatively and on postoperative day 1 were lower in the LMA group than in the ETT group (3.9 [2.0] vs 5.4 [2.3], P = .017 and 5.6 [1.9] vs 6.7 [1.7], P = .042, respectively); requirements for analgesics were similar in the 2 groups. The incidence of nausea was lower in the LMA group than in the ETT group until postoperative day 1 (4/28 [14%] vs 12/28 [43%], P = .031, respectively). Conclusion: The LMA Protector was an effective ventilator device associated with fewer intraoperative hemodynamic stress responses and improved the quality of early recovery after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

No abstract