Saudi journal of anaesthesia · 2014
The use of laryngeal mask airway during transesophageal echocardiography in pediatric patients.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Shafi Ahmed Mohammed A, Al-Ghamdi Abdulmohsin A, Mowafi Hany A, Al-Metwalli Roshdy R, Mousa Wesam F, Lardhi Amer A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) in the cardiac lab is usually performed in pediatric patients under general anesthesia with an endotracheal intubation (ET). This study was performed to investigate the safety and efficacy of using the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) as an alternative to ET to maintain pediatric airway during the general anesthesia for TEE.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 50 pediatric patients undergoing TEE in the cardiac lab were randomized to have their airway maintained during the procedure with either LMA (LMA group) or ET (ET group). Hemodynamic, respiratory parameters, time to extubation, recovery time, the incidence of complication and operator satisfaction were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: There were no differences between both groups in hemodynamic and respiratory parameters. Laryngeal spasm was reported in one patient in the LMA group and two patients in the ET group. TEE operators were equally satisfied with the procedure in groups. The time to extubation was shorter in the LMA group (P < 0.01). The mean recovery time was also significantly shorter in the LMA than in the ET group (44 ± 8 min and 59 ± 11 min, respectively; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The LMA is safe and effective in securing the airway of children undergoing diagnostic TEE.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 50 pediatric patients undergoing TEE in the cardiac lab were randomized to have their airway maintained during the procedure with either LMA (LMA group) or ET (ET group). Hemodynamic, respiratory parameters, time to extubation, recovery time, the incidence of complication and operator satisfaction were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: There were no differences between both groups in hemodynamic and respiratory parameters. Laryngeal spasm was reported in one patient in the LMA group and two patients in the ET group. TEE operators were equally satisfied with the procedure in groups. The time to extubation was shorter in the LMA group (P < 0.01). The mean recovery time was also significantly shorter in the LMA than in the ET group (44 ± 8 min and 59 ± 11 min, respectively; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The LMA is safe and effective in securing the airway of children undergoing diagnostic TEE.