Comparison of leak fraction between the laryngeal mask airway and endotracheal tube during anesthesia: a single-center retrospective study.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Journal of Anesthesia Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-22 DOI:10.1007/s00540-024-03364-y
Seiichi Azuma, Masaaki Asamoto, Shinichi Akabane, Mariko Ezaka, Mikiya Otsuji, Kanji Uchida
{"title":"Comparison of leak fraction between the laryngeal mask airway and endotracheal tube during anesthesia: a single-center retrospective study.","authors":"Seiichi Azuma, Masaaki Asamoto, Shinichi Akabane, Mariko Ezaka, Mikiya Otsuji, Kanji Uchida","doi":"10.1007/s00540-024-03364-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The use of the laryngeal mask airway (LMA), which offers the benefits of ease in insertion and prevention of tracheal damage, is associated with a risk of flow leakage. This study analyzed our extensive database to compare leakage associated with the use of LMA and endotracheal tube (ETT). Adult patients who underwent chest wall, abdominal wall, inguinal region, limb, transurethral, or transvaginal surgery and received either LMA or ETT between January 2007 and March 2020 were included. The leak fraction was calculated as (inspiratory tidal volume-expiratory tidal volume)/(inspiratory tidal volume) × 100% every minute during intraoperative stable positive pressure ventilation. The median leak fraction was calculated for each case. The leak fraction in the LMA group demonstrated a left-skewed distribution with a larger proportion of excessive leak fraction. The leak fraction in the LMA group (median, 7.9%; interquartile range, 4.8-11.4%) was significantly lower than that in the ETT group (median, 9.1%; interquartile range: 5.5-12.4%; P < 0.001). This tendency was consistent across subgroups divided by sex, age, type of surgery, and ventilation mode. We propose that LMA provides leakage comparable to or less than ETT in most cases if stable positive pressure ventilation is achieved.</p>","PeriodicalId":14997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11284178/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-024-03364-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The use of the laryngeal mask airway (LMA), which offers the benefits of ease in insertion and prevention of tracheal damage, is associated with a risk of flow leakage. This study analyzed our extensive database to compare leakage associated with the use of LMA and endotracheal tube (ETT). Adult patients who underwent chest wall, abdominal wall, inguinal region, limb, transurethral, or transvaginal surgery and received either LMA or ETT between January 2007 and March 2020 were included. The leak fraction was calculated as (inspiratory tidal volume-expiratory tidal volume)/(inspiratory tidal volume) × 100% every minute during intraoperative stable positive pressure ventilation. The median leak fraction was calculated for each case. The leak fraction in the LMA group demonstrated a left-skewed distribution with a larger proportion of excessive leak fraction. The leak fraction in the LMA group (median, 7.9%; interquartile range, 4.8-11.4%) was significantly lower than that in the ETT group (median, 9.1%; interquartile range: 5.5-12.4%; P < 0.001). This tendency was consistent across subgroups divided by sex, age, type of surgery, and ventilation mode. We propose that LMA provides leakage comparable to or less than ETT in most cases if stable positive pressure ventilation is achieved.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
麻醉期间喉罩通气道和气管插管泄漏率的比较:一项单中心回顾性研究。
喉罩通气道(LMA)具有易于插入和防止气管损伤的优点,但其使用与气流泄漏的风险有关。本研究分析了我们庞大的数据库,比较了与使用喉罩气道和气管导管 (ETT) 相关的漏气情况。研究纳入了 2007 年 1 月至 2020 年 3 月期间接受胸壁、腹壁、腹股沟区、四肢、经尿道或经阴道手术并接受 LMA 或 ETT 的成人患者。术中稳定正压通气期间,每分钟的漏气分数计算公式为(吸气潮气量-呼气潮气量)/(吸气潮气量)×100%。计算每个病例的中位泄漏分数。LMA 组的泄漏分数呈左斜分布,泄漏分数过高的比例较大。LMA 组的泄漏率(中位数为 7.9%;四分位间范围为 4.8-11.4%)明显低于 ETT 组(中位数为 9.1%;四分位间范围为 5.5-12.4%;P<0.05):5.5-12.4%; P
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Anesthesia
Journal of Anesthesia 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
112
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Anesthesia is the official journal of the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists. This journal publishes original articles, review articles, special articles, clinical reports, short communications, letters to the editor, and book and multimedia reviews. The editors welcome the submission of manuscripts devoted to anesthesia and related topics from any country of the world. Membership in the Society is not a prerequisite. The Journal of Anesthesia (JA) welcomes case reports that show unique cases in perioperative medicine, intensive care, emergency medicine, and pain management.
期刊最新文献
Ultrasound assessment of the frequency and variation of arteries in the interscalene region. Preoperative hypoxic biomarkers and postoperative delirium in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Reply to a letter. Effect of use of cuffed endotracheal tubes on the occurrence of postoperative extubation-related respiratory adverse events in pediatric patients with airway hypersensitivity: a retrospective cohort study. New insights in cardiovascular anesthesia: a dual focus on clinical practice and research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1