Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier) · 2013
Prospective, randomized clinical trial of laryngeal mask airway Supreme(®) used in patients undergoing general anesthesia.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Barreira Sara R, Souza Camila Machado, Fabrizia Fernanda, Azevedo Ana Bárbara G, Lelis Talitha G, Lutke Claudia
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Supraglottic airway devices are increasingly used as an option to tracheal intubation for elective procedures of varying complexity. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the clinical use of the laryngeal mask airway Supreme(®) (LMAS) in patients undergoing elective breast surgery and compare it with endotracheal tube (ETT).
METHODS: Sixty patients undergoing breast procedures under general anesthesia were randomly divided into two groups according to the device used (LMAS or ETT). Time of insertion, number of insertion attempts, hemodynamic response to insertion, presence of blood on the device used; and incidence of sore throat, dysphagia, nausea and vomiting were assessed postoperatively.
RESULTS: There was no difference between groups regarding time of insertion, number of attempts for successful insertion, and presence of blood on the device. Heart rate and blood pressure after insertion were higher in ETT group. Incidence of sore throat and dysphagia was also higher in ETT group after two hours in the postoperative period. There was no difference regarding incidence and severity of complications evaluated after six hours postoperatively.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of the LMAS technique to access airway during general anesthesia for elective breast surgery is as safe and effective as tracheal intubation, with the advantage of promoting smaller hemodynamic response during its management and lower incidence of sore throat and dysphagia in the first hours after surgery.
METHODS: Sixty patients undergoing breast procedures under general anesthesia were randomly divided into two groups according to the device used (LMAS or ETT). Time of insertion, number of insertion attempts, hemodynamic response to insertion, presence of blood on the device used; and incidence of sore throat, dysphagia, nausea and vomiting were assessed postoperatively.
RESULTS: There was no difference between groups regarding time of insertion, number of attempts for successful insertion, and presence of blood on the device. Heart rate and blood pressure after insertion were higher in ETT group. Incidence of sore throat and dysphagia was also higher in ETT group after two hours in the postoperative period. There was no difference regarding incidence and severity of complications evaluated after six hours postoperatively.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of the LMAS technique to access airway during general anesthesia for elective breast surgery is as safe and effective as tracheal intubation, with the advantage of promoting smaller hemodynamic response during its management and lower incidence of sore throat and dysphagia in the first hours after surgery.