MedElevator
Войти в исследования Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology · 2025
Laryngeal mask airway proseal versus laryngeal mask airway protector for laparoscopic surgery: A randomized comparative study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Srivastava Vinod K, Raman Rajesh, Prabha Rati, Verma Deshraj, Kushwaha Brij B, Gautam Shefali
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Laryngeal Mask Airway Protector (LMPt) and Laryngeal Mask Airway Proseal (LMPs) have a high oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) but have not been compared for laparoscopic surgery. It was hypothesized that LMPs and LMPt have different clinical performances while managing the airway of patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. The aim of the study was to compare the LMPs and LMPt for managing the airway of patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a prospective, single-blind, randomized, comparative trial. It included adult patients of either gender with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I/II planned for elective laparoscopic surgery. The airway of the recruited subjects was managed with either LMPs (group R, n = 60) or LMPt (group T, n = 60). OLP was the primary outcome variable. Number of attempts, insertion success, device insertion duration, ease of insertion, hemodynamics, gastric tube insertion, and complications were secondary outcome variables. Numerical data and dichotomous data were analyzed using student's t-test and χ2 test, respectively.
RESULTS: The OLP was statistically greater (P < 0.001) in group T before (30.23 ± 1.48 vs. 25.33 ± 1.40 cm H2O) and during (31.77 ± 0.65 vs. 27.12 ± 1.11 cm H2O) the pneumoperitoneum. The baseline and secondary outcome variables were statistically similar between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery, both LMPt and LMPs are suitable for airway management, but LMPt provides a higher OLP. More trials are required to validate these findings across different surgical settings and patient populations.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a prospective, single-blind, randomized, comparative trial. It included adult patients of either gender with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I/II planned for elective laparoscopic surgery. The airway of the recruited subjects was managed with either LMPs (group R, n = 60) or LMPt (group T, n = 60). OLP was the primary outcome variable. Number of attempts, insertion success, device insertion duration, ease of insertion, hemodynamics, gastric tube insertion, and complications were secondary outcome variables. Numerical data and dichotomous data were analyzed using student's t-test and χ2 test, respectively.
RESULTS: The OLP was statistically greater (P < 0.001) in group T before (30.23 ± 1.48 vs. 25.33 ± 1.40 cm H2O) and during (31.77 ± 0.65 vs. 27.12 ± 1.11 cm H2O) the pneumoperitoneum. The baseline and secondary outcome variables were statistically similar between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery, both LMPt and LMPs are suitable for airway management, but LMPt provides a higher OLP. More trials are required to validate these findings across different surgical settings and patient populations.