One‐Lung Versus Two‐Lung Ventilation in the Closed‐Chest Anesthetized Dog: A Comparison of Cardiopulmonary Parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate cardiopulmonary effects of one-lung ventilation (OLV) versus two-lung ventilation (TLV) in closed-chest anesthetized dogs. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled, randomized experiment. ANIMALS: Fourteen, 2- to 7-year-old adult dogs, weighing 23 +/- 6 kg. METHODS: The dogs were anesthetized with acepromazine, morphine, thiopental, and halothane in oxygen, ventilated, and paralyzed with vecuronium. Tidal volume was 10 mL/kg. Respiratory rate was set to maintain end-tidal CO2 (ETCO2) at 40 +/- 2 mm Hg before instrumentation then not changed. The left bronchus of 7 dogs was obstructed with a Univent bronchial blocker (Fuji Systems Corp, Tokyo, Japan). Blood gas analysis and hemodynamic measurements were taken at predetermined intervals for 1 hour in the TLV group and at baseline and following bronchial obstruction in the OLV group. RESULTS: Shunt fraction was not significantly different between groups, but in OLV shunt increased from baseline at 5 minutes. Arterial oxygen (PaO2) decreased after baseline in OLV compared with TLV. Arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO2) increased with OLV and decreased with TLV. In OLV, systemic vascular resistance was variable and decreased compared with TLV. Cardiac index increased over time in both groups but was not affected by treatment. Heart rate, mean arterial pressure, and diastolic arterial pressure increased with OLV compared with TLV but did not change over time. CONCLUSION: This study shows that OLV statistically decreases oxygen tension and transiently increases shunt fraction, but with 100% O2 it appears to be a feasible procedure with minimal cardiopulmonary side effects in healthy dogs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: OLV is a feasible procedure in anesthetized dogs to better facilitate thoracic procedures such as bronchopleural fistula repair and thoracoscopy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".