Anesthesiology · 2004
A randomized controlled trial comparing the ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway with the Laryngeal Tube Suction in mechanically ventilated patients.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное 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.
Gaitini Luis A, Vaida Sonia J, Somri Mostafa, Yanovski Boris, Ben-David Bruce, Hagberg Carin A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway (PLMA) (Laryngeal Mask Company, Henley-on-Thames, United Kingdom) is a new laryngeal mask with a modified cuff designed to improve its seal and a drain tube for gastric tube placement. Similarly, the Laryngeal Tube Suction (LTS) (VBM Medizintechnik Gmbh, Sulz a.N, Germany) is a new laryngeal tube that also has an additional channel for gastric tube placement. This study compared the placement and functions of these two devices.
METHODS: One hundred fifty patients undergoing general anesthesia for elective surgery were randomly allocated to the PLMA (n = 75) or LTS (n = 75). Oxygenation and ventilation, ease of insertion, fiberoptic view, oropharyngeal leak pressure, ventilatory data, ease of gastric tube insertion, and postoperative airway morbidity were determined.
RESULTS: After successful insertion of the devices in 96% of patients with the PLMA and in 94.4% with the LTS it was possible to maintain oxygenation, ventilation, and respiratory mechanics during the entire duration of surgery. Successful first and second attempt insertion rates were 57 patients (76%) and 15 patients (20%), respectively, for the PLMA and 60 patients (80%) and 11 patients (14.6%), respectively, for the LTS. Airway placement was unsuccessful with the PLMA in three patients and with the LTS in four patients. Time to achieve an effective airway was 36 +/- 24 s with the PLMA versus 34 +/- 25 s with the LTS. Gastric tube insertion was possible in 97.3% of patients with the PLMA and in 96% with the LTS.
CONCLUSIONS: With respect to both physiologic and clinical function, the PLMA and LTS are similar and either device can be used to establish a safe and effective airway in mechanically ventilated anesthetized adult patients.
METHODS: One hundred fifty patients undergoing general anesthesia for elective surgery were randomly allocated to the PLMA (n = 75) or LTS (n = 75). Oxygenation and ventilation, ease of insertion, fiberoptic view, oropharyngeal leak pressure, ventilatory data, ease of gastric tube insertion, and postoperative airway morbidity were determined.
RESULTS: After successful insertion of the devices in 96% of patients with the PLMA and in 94.4% with the LTS it was possible to maintain oxygenation, ventilation, and respiratory mechanics during the entire duration of surgery. Successful first and second attempt insertion rates were 57 patients (76%) and 15 patients (20%), respectively, for the PLMA and 60 patients (80%) and 11 patients (14.6%), respectively, for the LTS. Airway placement was unsuccessful with the PLMA in three patients and with the LTS in four patients. Time to achieve an effective airway was 36 +/- 24 s with the PLMA versus 34 +/- 25 s with the LTS. Gastric tube insertion was possible in 97.3% of patients with the PLMA and in 96% with the LTS.
CONCLUSIONS: With respect to both physiologic and clinical function, the PLMA and LTS are similar and either device can be used to establish a safe and effective airway in mechanically ventilated anesthetized adult patients.