Skip to content

The Effects of Two Different Ventilation Strategies on Lung Ventilation: An Ultrasonographic Evaluation.

The Effects of Two Different Ventilation Strategies on Lung Ventilation in Patients Undergoing Robotic Radical Prostatectomy: Ultrasonographic Evaluation.

Status
UNKNOWN
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03740854
Enrollment
72
Registered
2018-11-14
Start date
2018-12-04
Completion date
2020-07-01
Last updated
2019-02-27

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Prostate Cancer

Keywords

lung ultrasonography, mechanical ventilation, pressure controlled ventilation, volume controlled ventilation

Brief summary

This study will be performed in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy patients in Cerrahpasa Medical Faculty Monoblock Operating Room. Since robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is a surgical procedure which requires long-term mechanical ventilation, excessive trendelenburg position (30-45 °) and pneumoperitoneum; these interventions may lead to respiratory complications such as ventilation difficulty and aeration loss in patients. Nowadays, lung ultrasonography has been used in anesthesia practice and intensive care units in order to determine lung aeration loss. In this study, the investigators aimed to compare the possible aeration loss in lung parenchyma during pressure controlled ventilation and volume controlled ventilation which are frequently used in anesthesia practice in patients undergoing robotic radical prostatectomy.

Interventions

Patients will be ventilated with a pressure level which supplies a tidal volume corresponding 8ml/kg, 12 breaths per minute, 1/2 inspiration/expiration ratio and %40 Fraction of Inspired Oxygen . These ventilator settings can be changed in order to adjust end tidal carbon dioxide and oxygen saturation levels.

Patients will be ventilated with a tidal volume which corresponds 8ml/kg, 12 breaths per minute, 1/2 inspirastion/expiration ratio and %40 Fraction of Inspired Oxygen . These ventilator settings can be changed in order to adjust end tidal carbon dioxide and oxygen saturation levels.

Sponsors

Istanbul University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
TRIPLE (Subject, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
MALE
Age
18 Years to 75 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

18-75 age * Patient who will be undergo robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy surgery * Patient with ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) Score 1-3

Exclusion criteria

* Patients with ASA Score above 3 * Patients with obstructive (FEV1\<%60) or restrictive pulmonary disease (FVC\<%60) * Patients with intrathoracic operation history * Heavy smokers (\>25 cigarettes/day)

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
The difference between LUS Scores at T5 in patients ventilated with VCV and PCV(T5) 60 minutes after patients come to the recovery room.Lung Ultrasonography will be applied to patients after surgery in the recovery room at T5. Two different groups' LUS scores will be calculated and compared.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
The difference between LUS Scores at T2 in patients ventilated with VCV and PCV(T2) 5 minutes after intubationLung Ultrasonography will be applied to patients after intubation. Two different groups' LUS scores will be calculated and compared.
The difference between LUS Scores at T3 in patients ventilated with VCV and PCV(T3) 5 minutes after the surgical procedure is finishedLung Ultrasonography will be applied to patients at Trendelenburg position after the surgical prosedure is finished. Two different groups' LUS scores will be calculated and compared.
The difference between LUS Scores at T4 in patients ventilated with VCV and PCV(T4) 5 minutes after taking the patient to supin positionLung Ultrasonography will be applied to patients at supin position after the surgical prosedure is finished. Two different groups' LUS scores will be calculated and compared.

Countries

Turkey (Türkiye)

Contacts

Primary ContactHacer Zeynep Turgut, MD
drzturgut@gmail.com+905057859922
Backup ContactFatis Altintas, MD
fatisaltintas@hotmail.com+905337785278

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026