• Home
  • Browse
    • Current Issue
    • By Issue
    • By Author
    • By Subject
    • Author Index
    • Keyword Index
  • Journal Info
    • About Journal
    • Aims and Scope
    • Editorial Board
    • Publication Ethics
    • Peer Review Process
  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Contact Us
 
  • Login
  • Register
Home Articles List Article Information
  • Save Records
  • |
  • Printable Version
  • |
  • Recommend
  • |
  • How to cite Export to
    RIS EndNote BibTeX APA MLA Harvard Vancouver
  • |
  • Share Share
    CiteULike Mendeley Facebook Google LinkedIn Twitter
The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine
arrow Articles in Press
arrow Current Issue
Journal Archive
Volume Volume 99 (2025)
Volume Volume 98 (2025)
Volume Volume 97 (2024)
Volume Volume 96 (2024)
Volume Volume 95 (2024)
Volume Volume 94 (2024)
Volume Volume 93 (2023)
Volume Volume 92 (2023)
Volume Volume 91 (2023)
Volume Volume 90 (2023)
Volume Volume 89 (2022)
Issue Issue 2
Issue Issue 1
Volume Volume 88 (2022)
Volume Volume 87 (2022)
Volume Volume 86 (2022)
Volume Volume 85 (2021)
Volume Volume 84 (2021)
Volume Volume 83 (2021)
Volume Volume 82 (2021)
Volume Volume 81 (2020)
Volume Volume 80 (2020)
Volume Volume 79 (2020)
Volume Volume 78 (2020)
Volume Volume 77 (2019)
Volume Volume 76 (2019)
Volume Volume 75 (2019)
Volume Volume 74 (2019)
Volume Volume 73 (2018)
Volume Volume 72 (2018)
Volume Volume 71 (2018)
Volume Volume 70 (2018)
Volume Volume 69 (2017)
Volume Volume 68 (2017)
Volume Volume 67 (2017)
Volume Volume 66 (2017)
Volume Volume 65 (2016)
Volume Volume 64 (2016)
Volume Volume 63 (2016)
Volume Volume 62 (2016)
Volume Volume 61 (2015)
Volume Volume 60 (2015)
Volume Volume 59 (2015)
Volume Volume 58 (2015)
Volume Volume 57 (2014)
Volume Volume 56 (2014)
Volume Volume 55 (2014)
Volume Volume 54 (2014)
Volume Volume 53 (2013)
Volume Volume 52 (2013)
Volume Volume 51 (2013)
Volume Volume 50 (2013)
Volume Volume 49 (2012)
Volume Volume 48 (2012)
Volume Volume 47 (2012)
Volume Volume 46 (2012)
Volume Volume 45 (2011)
Volume Volume 44 (2011)
Volume Volume 43 (2011)
Volume Volume 42 (2011)
Volume Volume 41 (2010)
Volume Volume 40 (2010)
Volume Volume 39 (2010)
Volume Volume 38 (2010)
Volume Volume 37 (2009)
Volume Volume 36 (2009)
Volume Volume 35 (2009)
Volume Volume 34 (2009)
Volume Volume 33 (2008)
Volume Volume 32 (2008)
Volume Volume 31 (2008)
Volume Volume 30 (2008)
Volume Volume 29 (2007)
Volume Volume 28 (2007)
Volume Volume 27 (2007)
Volume Volume 26 (2007)
Volume Volume 25 (2006)
Volume Volume 24 (2006)
Volume Volume 23 (2006)
Volume Volume 22 (2006)
Volume Volume 21 (2005)
Volume Volume 20 (2005)
Volume Volume 19 (2005)
Volume Volume 18 (2005)
Volume Volume 17 (2004)
Volume Volume 16 (2004)
Volume Volume 15 (2004)
Volume Volume 14 (2004)
Volume Volume 13 (2003)
Volume Volume 12 (2003)
Volume Volume 11 (2003)
Volume Volume 10 (2003)
Volume Volume 9 (2002)
Volume Volume 8 (2002)
Volume Volume 7 (2002)
Volume Volume 6 (2002)
Volume Volume 5 (2001)
Volume Volume 4 (2001)
Volume Volume 3 (2001)
Volume Volume 2 (2001)
Volume Volume 1 (2000)
Hegazy, M., Neamatallah, H., Sultan, M., Hayes, S. (2022). Individualized versus Conventional Positive End-expiratory Pressure during One Lung Ventilation in Thoracic Surgeries: A Randomized Controlled Study. The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine, 89(1), 5301-5309. doi: 10.21608/ejhm.2022.262314
Mohammed A.M. Hegazy; Hamed H. M. Neamatallah; Mohammed A.A. Sultan; salwa M S Hayes. "Individualized versus Conventional Positive End-expiratory Pressure during One Lung Ventilation in Thoracic Surgeries: A Randomized Controlled Study". The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine, 89, 1, 2022, 5301-5309. doi: 10.21608/ejhm.2022.262314
Hegazy, M., Neamatallah, H., Sultan, M., Hayes, S. (2022). 'Individualized versus Conventional Positive End-expiratory Pressure during One Lung Ventilation in Thoracic Surgeries: A Randomized Controlled Study', The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine, 89(1), pp. 5301-5309. doi: 10.21608/ejhm.2022.262314
Hegazy, M., Neamatallah, H., Sultan, M., Hayes, S. Individualized versus Conventional Positive End-expiratory Pressure during One Lung Ventilation in Thoracic Surgeries: A Randomized Controlled Study. The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine, 2022; 89(1): 5301-5309. doi: 10.21608/ejhm.2022.262314

Individualized versus Conventional Positive End-expiratory Pressure during One Lung Ventilation in Thoracic Surgeries: A Randomized Controlled Study

Article 181, Volume 89, Issue 1, October 2022, Page 5301-5309  XML PDF (582.63 K)
Document Type: Original Article
DOI: 10.21608/ejhm.2022.262314
View on SCiNiTO View on SCiNiTO
Authors
Mohammed A.M. Hegazy; Hamed H. M. Neamatallah; Mohammed A.A. Sultan; salwa M S Hayes email
Department of anesthesia ,intensive care and pain management, faculty of medicine Mansoura University
Abstract
Background: Postoperative pulmonary problems from thoracic procedures are more likely to occur, which may lead to higher morbidity, a longer hospital stay, higher expenses, and a higher fatality rate.
Objective: This study was done to compare efficacy of using either individualized or the conventional positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) for one-lung ventilation on postoperative pulmonary complications.
Patients and Methods: This prospective randomized controlled study was done on 116 patients of age between 18 and 70 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status II to Ш of either sex who underwent elective thoracic surgeries using one-lung ventilation. Patients were allocated randomly to either conventional PEEP group in which patients underwent thoracic surgeries using conventional PEEP (5 cmH2O) or individualized PEEP group in which patients underwent thoracic surgeries using individualized optimal PEEP which produces the best static lung compliance.
Results: The incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) was lower in individualized PEEP group (12.1%) compared to conventional PEEP group (34.5%) with p (0.004). The most common complication incidence was lung collapse, which was greater in the conventional PEEP group (10.3%) than in the individualized PEEP group (27.6%). Arterial oxygen pressure/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio was greater in the individualized compared to conventional PEEP group (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in incidence of pneumonia, pleural effusion, pneumothorax, ARDS, or pulmonary embolism.
Conclusion: Using individualized PEEP in patients receiving one-lung ventilation for thoracic surgeries resulted in decreased incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications, lower postoperative lung aeration score, better intraoperative respiratory mechanics, and oxygenation with no significant changes in hemodynamics.
 
Keywords
Individualized PEEP; Conventional PEEP; One Lung Ventilation; Pulmonary Complications
Statistics
Article View: 213
PDF Download: 330
Home | Glossary | News | Aims and Scope | Sitemap
Top Top

Journal Management System. Designed by NotionWave.