Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pressure-controlled versus volume-controlled ventilation during one-lung ventilation in the prone position for robot-assisted esophagectomy

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The prone position during robotic esophageal mobilization for minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) provides several advantages with regards to operative times, surgeon ergonomics, and surgical view; however, this technique requires one-lung ventilation (OLV). There are no guidelines about ventilatory modes during OLV in the prone position. We investigated the effects of volume-controlled (VCV) and pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) on oxygenation and intrapulmonary shunt during OLV in the prone position in patients who underwent robot-assisted esophagectomy.

Methods

Eighteen patients, no major obstructive or restrictive pulmonary disease, were allocated randomly to one of two groups. In the first group (n = 9), OLV was started by VCV and the ventilator was switched to PCV after 30 minutes. In the second group (n = 9), the modes of ventilation were performed in the opposite order in the prone position. Hemodynamic and respiratory variables were obtained during OLV at the end of each ventilatory mode.

Results

There were no significant differences in arterial oxygen tension (PaO2), airway pressures, dynamic lung compliance, or physiologic dead space (Vd/Vt) during OLV between PCV and VCV in the prone position. Intrapulmonary shunt (Qs/Qt) was significantly lower with VCV than with PCV during OLV in the prone position (p = 0.044).

Conclusion

PCV provides no advantages compared with VCV with regard to respiratory and hemodynamic variables during OLV in the prone position. Either ventilatory mode can be safely used for patients who undergo robot-assisted esophagectomy and who have normal body mass index and preserved pulmonary function.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fabian T, Martin J, Katigbak M, McKelvey AA, Federico JA (2008) Thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization during minimally invasive esophagectomy: a head-to-head comparison of prone versus decubitus positions. Surg Endosc 22:2485–2491

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fabian T, McKelvey AA, Kent MS, Federico JA (2007) Prone thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization for minimally invasive esophagectomy. Surg Endosc 21:1667–1670

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Palanivelu C, Prakash A, Senthilkumar R, Senthilnathan P, Parthasarathi R, Rajan PS, Venkatachlam S (2006) Minimally invasive esophagectomy: thoracoscopic mobilization of the esophagus and mediastinal lymphadenectomy in prone position–experience of 130 patients. J Am Coll Surg 203:7–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Watanabe S, Noguchi E, Yamada S, Hamada N, Kano T (2000) Sequential changes of arterial oxygen tension in the supine position during one-lung ventilation. Anesth Analg 90:28–34

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ross DJ, Wu P, Mohsenifar Z (1997) Assessment of postural differences in regional pulmonary perfusion in man by single-photon emission computerized tomography. Clin Sci (Lond) 92:81–85

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Pelosi P, Croci M, Calappi E, Cerisara M, Mulazzi D, Vicardi P, Gattinoni L (1995) The prone positioning during general anesthesia minimally affects respiratory mechanics while improving functional residual capacity and increasing oxygen tension. Anesth Analg 80:955–960

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Manna EM, Ibraheim OA, Samarkandi AH, Alotaibi WM, Elwatidy SM (2005) The effect of prone position on respiratory mechanics during spinal surgery. Middle East J Anesthesiol 18:623–630

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tugrul M, Camci E, Karadeniz H, Sentürk M, Pembeci K, Akpir K (1997) Comparison of volume controlled with pressure controlled ventilation during one-lung anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 79:306–310

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Unzueta MC, Casas JI, Moral MV (2007) Pressure-controlled versus volume-controlled ventilation during one-lung ventilation for thoracic surgery. Anesth Analg 104:1029–1033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Heimberg C, Winterhalter M, Strüber M, Piepenbrock S, Bund M (2006) Pressure-controlled versus volume-controlled one-lung ventilation for MIDCAB. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 54:516–520

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Prella M, Feihl F, Domenighetti G (2002) Effects of short-term pressure controlled ventilation on gas exchange, airway pressures, and gas distribution in patients with acute lung injury/ARDS. Comparison with volume-controlled ventilation. Chest 122:1382–1388

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Davis K Jr, Branson RD, Campbell RS, Porembka DT (1996) Comparison of volume control and pressure control ventilation: is flow waveform the difference? J Trauma 41:808–814

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Maeda Y, Fujino Y, Uchiyama A, Matsuura N, Mashimo T, Nishimura M (2004) Effects of peak inspiratory flow on development of ventilator-induced lung injury in rabbits. Anesthesiology 101:722–728

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hardman JG, Aitkenhead AR (2003) Estimating alveolar dead space from the arterial to end-tidal CO2 gradient: a modeling analysis. Anesth Analg 97:1846–1851

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dharmavaram S, Jellish WS, Nockels RP, Shea J, Mehmood R, Ghanayem A, Kleinman B, Jacobs W (2006) Effect of prone positioning systems on hemodynamic and cardiac function during lumbar spine surgery: an echocardiographic study. Spine 31:1388–1394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Soro M, García-Pérez ML, Belda FJ, Ferrandis R, Aguilar G, Tusman G, Gramuntell F (2007) Effects of prone position on alveolar dead space and gas exchange during general anaesthesia in surgery of long duration. Eur J Anaesthesiol 24:431–437

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mentzelopoulos SD, Roussos C, Zakynthinos SG (2005) Prone position reduces lung stress and strain in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Eur Respir J 25:534–544

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Albert RK, Hubmayr RD (2000) The prone position eliminates compression of the lungs by the heart. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 161:1660–1665

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mure M, Lindahl SG (2001) Prone position improves gas exchange—but how? Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 45:150–159

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mure M, Domino KB, Lindahl SGE, Hlastala MP, Altemeier WA, Glenny RW (2000) Regional ventilation-perfusion distribution is more uniform in the prone position. J Appl Physiol 88:1076–1083

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sentürk M (2006) New concepts of the management of one-lung ventilation. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 19:1–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sentürk M (2007) Protective ventilation during one-lung ventilation. Anesthesiology 107:176–177

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Stewart TE, Meade MO, Cook DJ, Granton JT, Hodder RV, Lapinsky SE, Mazer CD, McLean RF, Rogovein TS, Schouten BD, Todd TR, Slutsky AS (1998) Evaluation of a ventilation strategy to prevent Barotrauma in patients at high risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 338:355–361

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. MacIntyre NR (1996) New modes of mechanical ventilation. Clin Chest Med 17:411–421

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cadi P, Guenoun T, Journois D, Chevallier JM, Diehl JL, Safran D (2008) Pressure-controlled ventilation improves oxygenation during laparoscopic obesity surgery compared with volume-controlled ventilation. Br J Anaesth 100:709–716

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Campbell RS, Davis BR (2002) Pressure-controlled versus volume-controlled ventilation: does it matter? Respir Care 47:416–426

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Esteban A, Alía I, Gordo F, de Pablo R, Suarez J, González G, Blanco J (2000) Prospective randomized trial comparing pressure-controlled ventilation and volume-controlled ventilation in ARDS. For the Spanish Lung Failure Collaborative Group. Chest 117:1690–1696

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Edibam C, Rutten AJ, Collins DV, Bersten AD (2003) Effect of inspiratory flow pattern and inspiratory to expiratory ratio on nonlinear elastic behavior in patients with acute lung injury. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 167:702–707

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Tusman G, Böhm SH, Vazquez de Anda GF, do Campo JL, Lachmann B (1999) ‘Alveolar recruitment strategy’ improves arterial oxygenation during general anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 82:8–13

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mead J, Takishina T, Leith D (1970) Stress distribution in lungs: a model of pulmonary elasticity. J Appl Physiol 28:594–608

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 134 Shinchon-Dong, Seodaemun-Ku, 120-752, Seoul, South Korea

    Yong Seon Choi, Jae Kwang Shim, Sungwon Na, Seung Bum Hong & Young Jun Oh

  2. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Ajou University College of Medicine, Woncheon-dong san 5, Yeongtong-gu, 443-721, Suwon, Republic of Korea

    Yong Woo Hong

Authors
  1. Yong Seon Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jae Kwang Shim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sungwon Na
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Seung Bum Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yong Woo Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Young Jun Oh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Young Jun Oh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Choi, Y.S., Shim, J.K., Na, S. et al. Pressure-controlled versus volume-controlled ventilation during one-lung ventilation in the prone position for robot-assisted esophagectomy. Surg Endosc 23, 2286–2291 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0310-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0310-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation