Article Text

PDF
Dogs
Use of an 'EZ-blocker' to facilitate thoracoscopic surgery in two dogs
  1. Wen Hui Wang1,
  2. Sabina Diez Bernal2,
  3. Alessandro Mirra2,
  4. Olivier Louis Raymond Levionnois2 and
  5. Mathieu Raillard2
  1. 1EDEN Animal Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
  2. 2Institute of Anaesthesiology and Pain Therapy, Vetsuisse Fakultat Universitat Bern, Bern, Switzerland
  1. Correspondence to Dr Mathieu Raillard; mathieu_raillard{at}yahoo.it

Abstract

This report documents the practical introduction of an EZ-blocker to achieve one-lung ventilation in two medium-sized dogs for video-assisted thoracoscopic pericardiectomy and right caudal lung lobectomy. Bronchoscopy was performed after blind introduction of the device through the endotracheal tube at the level of the tracheobronchial bifurcation. The EZ-blocker was successfully placed on the first attempt in the first case but initially remained trapped in the Murphy eye of the endotracheal tube in the second case, requiring repositioning. Surgical visibility was considered satisfactory when the left lung lobes were collapsed but not optimal when the right lung lobes had to be collapsed because the right cranial lung lobe could not be isolated for anatomical reasons. Both dogs recovered from anaesthesia uneventfully. Anaesthetic management with particular emphasis on the practical use of the EZ-blocker is reported. Placement of the EZ-blocker and challenges associated with right lung isolation are described.

  • anaesthesia
  • one lung ventilation
  • dogs
  • thoracoscopy
  • pericardectomy
  • ez-blocker
  • Received February 15, 2017.
  • Revision received June 30, 2017.
  • Accepted July 3, 2017.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

  • Received February 15, 2017.
  • Revision received June 30, 2017.
  • Accepted July 3, 2017.
View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors WHW was involved in the anaesthetic management of the two cases and was the primary author of the report. SDB and AM were primarily involved in the anaesthetic management of the cases and participated to the review of the manuscript. OLRL and MR were involved in the cases' supervision and contributed to the report's redaction and revision.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement There are no additional data for this paper.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.