Annales francaises d'anesthesie et de reanimation · 2014
[Survey national professional practice on the use of the laryngeal mask].
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Ponsonnard S, Duvoid T, Gagnoud R, Dalmay F, Cros J, Nathan N
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This survey aimed to describe the current use of laryngeal mask (LM) and to define the difference of use according to a group defined like experts.
METHODS: A self-questionnaire available on Internet was sent by e-mail to French anesthesiologists. Results were compared by a Chi(2) test between anesthesiologists according to their expertise defined by a >750 LM use.
RESULTS: Nine hundred and fifty-three anesthesiologists answered to the survey. Only 19 reported never using LM and 37% of responders were defined as expert. More than half of the MAR used the ideal weight to set the size of the MLA to use. Pressure leak was sought by less than one-third of the MAR. In case of leakage, a mobilization of the ML or the patient's head was performed first. In second intention, nearly a quarter of MAR changed technique for the benefit of oral intubation. Only 50% of responders used LM as a rescue technique in case of difficult intubation and ventilation. Experts had less insertion failure and laryngospasm. Complications and medico-legal suites are few.
CONCLUSIONS: Variability of practice may be explained by low-grade recommendations in the literature. LM insertion in case of difficult intubation/ventilation to provide adequate oxygenation and should be formally reminded to clinicians.
METHODS: A self-questionnaire available on Internet was sent by e-mail to French anesthesiologists. Results were compared by a Chi(2) test between anesthesiologists according to their expertise defined by a >750 LM use.
RESULTS: Nine hundred and fifty-three anesthesiologists answered to the survey. Only 19 reported never using LM and 37% of responders were defined as expert. More than half of the MAR used the ideal weight to set the size of the MLA to use. Pressure leak was sought by less than one-third of the MAR. In case of leakage, a mobilization of the ML or the patient's head was performed first. In second intention, nearly a quarter of MAR changed technique for the benefit of oral intubation. Only 50% of responders used LM as a rescue technique in case of difficult intubation and ventilation. Experts had less insertion failure and laryngospasm. Complications and medico-legal suites are few.
CONCLUSIONS: Variability of practice may be explained by low-grade recommendations in the literature. LM insertion in case of difficult intubation/ventilation to provide adequate oxygenation and should be formally reminded to clinicians.