ATS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Personal Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Author home page(s):
Edward H. Williams
Mark Kurusz
Carolyn W. Shaffer
William S. Pierce
John A. Waldhausen
Right arrow Permission Requests
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Williams, D. R.
Right arrow Articles by Waldhausen, J. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Williams, D. R.
Right arrow Articles by Waldhausen, J. A.

Ann Thorac Surg 1978;25:30-35
© 1978 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

Articles

Similarity of Clinical and Laboratory Results Obtained with Microporous Teflon Membrane Oxygenator and Bubble-Film Hybrid Oxygenator

Dennis R. Williams, C.C.P., G. Frank O. Tyers, M.D.*, Edward H. Williams, M.D., Mark Kurusz, C.C.P., Carolyn W. Shaffer, M.D., William S. Pierce, M.D., John A. Waldhausen, M.D.

Department of Surgery, The Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, The Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA.

Accepted for publication June 8, 1977.

* Address reprint requests to Dr. Tyers, Department of Surgery, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX 77550

For 80 elective clinical cardiopulmonary bypasses we alternately used either a commercial microporous Teflon membrane oxygenator or a commercial hybrid bubble-film oxygenator. Setup time was a little longer with the membrane unit (20 minutes), but priming volume (2,250 ml) was the same. No problems were encountered with the hybrid oxygenator. However, despite our monitoring of additional variables, including shim and inlet pressure and recirculation flow, gas exchange abnormalities were encountered in 5 patients on whom the membrane oxygenator was used; in 4 of these cases the abnormalities were encountered prior to our recognition of the potential for occasional internal shunting with this device.

There were no hospital deaths. When the two groups, matched except for oxygenator selection, were compared, there were no significant differences clinically or hematologically. For cardiopulmonary bypass of 2 hours or less, both oxygenators studied are definite improvements over previous silicone membrane and high-gas-flow bubble oxygenators. However, lower cost and reduced complexity favor the hybrid oxygenator.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
M. Boers, J. J. A. M. van den Dungen, G. F. Karliczek, U. Brenken, J. N. H. van der Heide, and C. R. H. Wildevuur
Two Membrane Oxygenators and a Bubbler: A Clinical Comparison
Ann. Thorac. Surg., April 1, 1983; 35(4): 455 - 462.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
R. M. Sade, D. M. Bartles, J. P. Dearing, L. J. Campbell, and C. B. Loadholt
A Prospective Randomized Study of Membrane versus Bubble Oxygenators in Children
Ann. Thorac. Surg., June 1, 1980; 29(6): 502 - 511.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch SurgHome page
G. L. Hicks, H. H. J. Zwart, and R. A. DeWall
Membrane vs Bubble Oxygenators: A Prospective Study of 52 Patients
Arch Surg, November 1, 1979; 114(11): 1285 - 1287.
[Abstract] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
ANN THORAC SURG ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG
J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG ICVTS ALL CTSNet JOURNALS
Copyright © 1978 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons.