MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций
Медицинская библиотека · Masui. The Japanese journal of anesthesiology · 2008

[Comparison of the Laryngeal Tube Suction and the Proseal laryngeal Mask Airway in anesthetized patients].

Ueno Megumi, Suzuki Akihiro, Takahata Osamu, Iwasaki Hiroshi

Сравнительное исследованиеАннотация на английскомСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

BACKGROUND

The Laryngeal Tube Suction (LTS : Smith Medical, Tokyo) is a new laryngeal tube that has an additional channel for gastric tube placement. Similarly, the Proseal Laryngeal Mask Airway (PLMA) also has a drain tube for gastric tube placement. This study compared the functions of these two devices.

METHODS

Forty patients undergoing general anesthesia were randomly allocated to the group LTS (n = 20) or group PLMA (n = 20). Ease of insertion, quality of airway seal, ease of gastric tube insertion, fiberoptic view of the glottis through each device after placement, and postoperative sorethroat/hoarseness were investigated.

RESULTS

There were no differences in patient characteristics and anesthetic background data for both groups. No differences concerning handling, quality of airway seal, ease of gastric tube insertion, and postoperative airway morbidity were detected between LTS and PLMA. In economical terms, LTS was more reasonable compared with PLMA.

CONCLUSIONS

With respect to clinical function, the LTS and PLMA were similar and either device can be used to establish an effective airway in anesthetized patients.

Для цитирования: Ueno Megumi, Suzuki Akihiro, Takahata Osamu, Iwasaki Hiroshi. [Comparison of the Laryngeal Tube Suction and the Proseal laryngeal Mask Airway in anesthetized patients].. Masui. The Japanese journal of anesthesiology. 2008.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
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.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.