m+Medelevator.RU
← Поиск публикаций
Paediatric anaesthesia · 2012

The Size 1 ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway in infants: a randomized, noncrossover study with the Classic™ laryngeal mask airway.

Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

López-Gil Maite, Mantilla Ignacio, Blanco Teresa, Teigell Enrique, Hervias Mónica, Fernández-López Rosa

Аннотация

BACKGROUND: In recent years, numerous scientific publications have endorsed the superiority of the ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) over the Classic™ laryngeal mask airway (cLMA) in adults, children, and infants. The PLMA forms a better seal for both the respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts, provides easier access to the gastrointestinal tract, and exerts lower mucosal pressures for a given seal pressure. This study aims to determine whether this superiority can also be observed for the size 1 PLMA used in anesthetized neonates and infants with positive pressure ventilation.

METHODS: Sixty consecutive neonates and infants undergoing elective surgical procedures were randomized to airway management with the size 1 PLMA or cLMA. For all patients, we recorded ease of insertion, effective airway time, number of placement attempts, oropharyngeal leak pressure, fiberoptic position, audible leaks, mask displacement, number of reinsertions during maintenance, gastric insufflation, and frequency of blood stain.

RESULTS: Ease of insertion, successful insertion in <3 attempts, fiberoptic position of the airway tube, and frequency of blood stain were similar in both groups. Effective airway time was lower for the PLMA group (30.5 vs 35.6 s). Oropharyngeal leak pressure was higher with the PLMA (32.9 vs 22.2 cm H(2)O, P < 0.001) and gastric insufflation less common (0% vs 6%, P = 0.492). There were fewer mask displacements during maintenance of anesthesia with the PLMA (0% vs 26.7%, P < 0.001). Mask reinsertion was not necessary during maintenance of anesthesia with the PLMA, although it was necessary in 14 cases in the cLMA group (0% vs 46%, P < 0.001). Audible leaks were less common with the PLMA (0% vs 46%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the size 1 PLMA is a stable, safe, and efficacious airway control device during neonatal and infant anesthesia, allowing higher peak airway pressure during positive pressure ventilation, with fewer mask displacements and gastric insufflations than the cLMA.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

ИП Урсолов Владлен Сергеевич

ИНН 500118482352 · ОГРНИП 314500117700049

Реквизиты и контакты