[A Germany-wide survey on anaesthesia in thoracic surgery].

BACKGROUND/
OBJECTIVE: This study's objective was to evaluate current thoracic anaesthesia practice in Germany and to quantify potential differences depending on the hospital's level of care.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A four-part online survey containing 28 questions was mailed to all anaesthesiology department chairs (n = 777) registered with the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine.
RESULTS: The general response rate was 31.5 % (n = 245). High monthly volumes (>50 operations/month) of intrathoracic procedures, performed by specialized thoracic surgeons are mostly limited to hospitals of maximum care, university hospitals, and specialized thoracic clinics. In hospitals with a lower level of care, intrathoracic operations occur less frequently (1-5/month) and are commonly performed by general (69.3 %) rather than thoracic surgeons (15.4 %). Video-assisted thoracic surgeries are the most invasive intrathoracic procedures for most hospitals with a low level of care (61.5 %). Extended resections and pneumonectomies occur mainly in hospitals of maximum care and university hospitals. Thoracic anaesthesia is primarily performed by consultants or senior physicians (59.9 %). The double lumen tube (91.4 %) is the preferred method to enable one-lung ventilation (bronchial blockers: 2.7 %; missing answer: 5.9 %). A bronchoscopic confirmation of the correct placement of a double lumen tube is considered mandatory by 87.7 % of the respondents. Bronchial blockers are available in 64.7 % of all thoracic anaesthesia departments. While CPAP-valves for the deflated lung are commonly used (74.9 %), jet-ventilators are rarely accessible, especially in hospitals with a lower level of care (15.4 %). Although general algorithms for a difficult airway are widely available (87.7 %), specific recommendations for a difficult airway in thoracic anaesthesia are uncommon (4.8 %). Laryngeal mask airways (90.9 %) and videolaryngoscopy (88.8 %) are the primary adjuncts in store for a difficult airway. While hospitals with a lower level of care admitted patients routinely (92.3 %) to an intensive care unit after thoracic surgery, larger clinics used the postanaesthesia recovery room (12.5 %) and intermediate care units (14.6 %) more frequently for further surveillance. Thoracic epidural catheters (85.6 %) are predominantly chosen for peri- and postoperative analgesia, in contrast to paravertebral blockade (single shot: 8.6 %; catheter: 8.0 %) (multiple answers possible). Ultrasound is generally accessible (84.5 %) and mostly employed for the placement of central venous (81.3 %) and arterial (43.9 %) lines as well as a diagnostic tool for pulmonary pathology (62.0 %).
CONCLUSION: The study reveals considerable differences in the anaesthetic practice in thoracic surgery. These focus mostly on the postoperative surveillance, the availability of bronchial blockers, and the use of regional anaesthetic techniques. Furthermore, it is evident that specific algorithms are needed for the difficult airway in thoracic anaesthesia. A recommendation for the high-tech work environment of thoracic anaesthesia could enhance the structural quality and optimize patient outcomes. Independent of a hospital's level of care, uniform requirements could help establish national quality standards in thoracic anaesthesia.