Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Consort diagram.

Group N, non-modified double-lumen tube group; Group M, individually angle-modified double-lumen tube group

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Tube angle-modification in the angle-modified double-lumen tube group.

OA, oral axis; PA, pharyngeal axis; (A) With the patient’s head in the sniffing position, the oral and pharyngeal axes were assessed on the lateral side of the face. (B) The distal tip of the tube was positioned at the upper margin of the cricoid cartilage. (C) The tube shaft was bent at the intersection of the imaginary oral and the pharyngeal axes in order to produce a fluent curve.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics and Airway Assessment.

Data are presented as mean (SD) or number (%). No significant difference in any of those variables was observed between the two groups.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Intubation Outcome Data.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Detailed Description of the Patients Who Failed the First Intubation Attempt.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 3.

Comparison of the median intubation times between the groups.

Group N, non-modified double-lumen tube group; Group M, individually angle-modified double-lumen tube group). (A) Overall analysis of the patients. (B) Subgroup analysis according to the Cormack and Lehane (C-L) grade. (C) Subgroup analysis according to the Cormack and Lehane (C-L) grade with the BURP (backward, upward, and rightward pressure on the larynx) technique.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Table 4.

Postoperative Complications.

More »

Table 4 Expand