Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier) · 2021
Comparison of Proseal LMA with i-Gel in children under controlled ventilation: a prospective randomised clinical study.
СтатьяРандомизированное 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.
Shiveshi Praveen, Anandaswamy Tejesh Channasandra
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Supraglottic airway device is presently the most common modality of airway management in children for short surgical procedures. The i-gel is one such novel supraglottic airway device with a non-inflatable cuff. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the efficiency of i-gel compared to LMA Proseal regarding oropharyngeal leak pressure, insertion time, ease of insertion, and fibreoptic view of larynx.
METHODS: After obtaining ethical clearance and parental consent, 70 children aged 2-10 years, weighing 10-30 kg were randomised to receive LMA Proseal or i-gel for airway management. Data with respect to oropharyngeal leak pressure, insertion time, ease of insertion, number of attempts, and fibreoptic score were collected. The primary outcome was the oropharyngeal leak pressure with the two supraglottic airway devices measured by manometric stability.
RESULTS: Demographic data were comparable between the two groups. The oropharyngeal leak pressure (LMA Proseal vs. i-gel, 20.51 ± 4.71 cmH2O vs. 19.57 ± 5.71 cmH2O), ease of insertion, number of attempts, and fibreoptic view score was similar between the two groups. The insertion time was faster with i-gel (22.63 ± 5.79 s) compared to LMA Proseal (43.26 ± 7.85 s).
CONCLUSION: I-gel was similar to LMA Proseal with respect to oropharyngeal leak pressure in children under controlled ventilation.
METHODS: After obtaining ethical clearance and parental consent, 70 children aged 2-10 years, weighing 10-30 kg were randomised to receive LMA Proseal or i-gel for airway management. Data with respect to oropharyngeal leak pressure, insertion time, ease of insertion, number of attempts, and fibreoptic score were collected. The primary outcome was the oropharyngeal leak pressure with the two supraglottic airway devices measured by manometric stability.
RESULTS: Demographic data were comparable between the two groups. The oropharyngeal leak pressure (LMA Proseal vs. i-gel, 20.51 ± 4.71 cmH2O vs. 19.57 ± 5.71 cmH2O), ease of insertion, number of attempts, and fibreoptic view score was similar between the two groups. The insertion time was faster with i-gel (22.63 ± 5.79 s) compared to LMA Proseal (43.26 ± 7.85 s).
CONCLUSION: I-gel was similar to LMA Proseal with respect to oropharyngeal leak pressure in children under controlled ventilation.