A Comparison of Awake Versus Deep Removal of Laryngeal Mask Airway in Children Aged 2 to 8 Years Who Underwent Ophthalmic Procedures at Menilik II Hospital: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study

IF 0.6 Q4 SURGERY Open Access Surgery Pub Date : 2021-03-10 DOI:10.2147/OAS.S287507
Assefa Hika, W. Ayele, B. Aberra, Adugna Aregawi, Abere Tilahun Bantie, S. Mulugeta, Dinkisisa Chemeda, Ashenafi Seifu
{"title":"A Comparison of Awake Versus Deep Removal of Laryngeal Mask Airway in Children Aged 2 to 8 Years Who Underwent Ophthalmic Procedures at Menilik II Hospital: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study","authors":"Assefa Hika, W. Ayele, B. Aberra, Adugna Aregawi, Abere Tilahun Bantie, S. Mulugeta, Dinkisisa Chemeda, Ashenafi Seifu","doi":"10.2147/OAS.S287507","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Laryngeal mask airway (LMA) is a useful airway device which provides an alternative to ventilation through a face mask or endotracheal tube during ophthalmic surgery. It can be removed either when a child awakens or deeply anesthetized. But there is little evidence for best practice on the timing of their removal after ophthalmic surgery in the pediatric population. It has been studied by various investigators but with conflicting results and conclusions. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of depth of anesthesia (awake or deep anesthesia) on the incidence of airway associated complications during LMA removal. Methodology: A prospective observational cohort study was conducted from January to April 2018. Sixty-two American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I and II pediatric (aged 2–8 years) patients who underwent ophthalmic procedures under general anesthesia with LMA were recruited. Grouping (awake group or deep group) was done based on independent decision of on duty anesthetist and halothane 1–1.5% was used as maintenance anesthesia. The incidence of airway-related adverse events like coughing, upper airway obstruction (Laryngospasm), breath holding, desaturation, excessive salivation, biting, vomiting, and retching with LMA removal were evaluated. Collected data were entered into Epi Info™ version 7.0 and transported to the SPSS version 22 for analysis. Fisher’s exact test and Chi-square test were used to analyze dependent variables and P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistical significance. Results: There were no significant differences in airway-related adverse events. The incidence of coughing (12.9%, 6.5%), upper airway obstruction (41.9%, 35.5%), breath holding (9.7%, 3.2%), desaturation (16.1%, 22.6%), excessive salivation (19.4%, 12.9%), and biting (6.5%, 0%) between awake and deep groups respectively with (p > 0.05). Laryngospasm, vomiting, and retching did not occur in either group. Conclusion: There was no significant difference in the incidence of airway-related adverse events whether the LMA was removed in a deep or awake condition.","PeriodicalId":56363,"journal":{"name":"Open Access Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Access Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/OAS.S287507","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Laryngeal mask airway (LMA) is a useful airway device which provides an alternative to ventilation through a face mask or endotracheal tube during ophthalmic surgery. It can be removed either when a child awakens or deeply anesthetized. But there is little evidence for best practice on the timing of their removal after ophthalmic surgery in the pediatric population. It has been studied by various investigators but with conflicting results and conclusions. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of depth of anesthesia (awake or deep anesthesia) on the incidence of airway associated complications during LMA removal. Methodology: A prospective observational cohort study was conducted from January to April 2018. Sixty-two American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I and II pediatric (aged 2–8 years) patients who underwent ophthalmic procedures under general anesthesia with LMA were recruited. Grouping (awake group or deep group) was done based on independent decision of on duty anesthetist and halothane 1–1.5% was used as maintenance anesthesia. The incidence of airway-related adverse events like coughing, upper airway obstruction (Laryngospasm), breath holding, desaturation, excessive salivation, biting, vomiting, and retching with LMA removal were evaluated. Collected data were entered into Epi Info™ version 7.0 and transported to the SPSS version 22 for analysis. Fisher’s exact test and Chi-square test were used to analyze dependent variables and P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistical significance. Results: There were no significant differences in airway-related adverse events. The incidence of coughing (12.9%, 6.5%), upper airway obstruction (41.9%, 35.5%), breath holding (9.7%, 3.2%), desaturation (16.1%, 22.6%), excessive salivation (19.4%, 12.9%), and biting (6.5%, 0%) between awake and deep groups respectively with (p > 0.05). Laryngospasm, vomiting, and retching did not occur in either group. Conclusion: There was no significant difference in the incidence of airway-related adverse events whether the LMA was removed in a deep or awake condition.
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
在Menilik II医院接受眼科手术的2至8岁儿童清醒与深摘喉罩气道的比较:一项前瞻性观察队列研究
背景:喉罩气道(LMA)是一种有用的气道设备,它在眼科手术中提供了通过面罩或气管插管进行通气的替代方案。它可以在孩子醒来或深度麻醉时取出。但是,在儿科人群中,几乎没有证据表明眼科手术后摘除它们的最佳时机。不同的研究者对它进行了研究,但结果和结论并不一致。目的:本研究的目的是评估深度麻醉(清醒或深度麻醉)对LMA摘除过程中气道相关并发症发生率的影响。方法:2018年1月至4月进行了一项前瞻性观察性队列研究。招募了62名美国麻醉师协会身体状况I和II的儿科(年龄2-8岁)患者,他们在LMA全身麻醉下接受了眼科手术。分组(清醒组或深组)根据值班麻醉师的独立决定进行,使用1-1.5%的氟烷作为维持麻醉。评估了移除LMA后与气道相关的不良事件的发生率,如咳嗽、上呼吸道阻塞(喉痉挛)、屏气、去饱和、唾液过多、叮咬、呕吐和干呕。收集的数据已输入Epi信息™ 7.0版本,并传输到SPSS版本22进行分析。Fisher精确检验和卡方检验用于分析因变量,P值小于0.05被认为具有统计学意义。结果:气道相关不良事件发生率无显著差异。清醒组和深部组咳嗽(12.9%,6.5%)、上呼吸道阻塞(41.9%,35.5%)、屏气(9.7%,3.2%)、去饱和(16.1%,22.6%)、流涎过多(19.4%,12.9%)和叮咬(6.5%,0%)的发生率分别为(p>0.05)。两组均未出现喉痉挛、呕吐和干呕。结论:无论是在深部还是清醒状态下移除LMA,气道相关不良事件的发生率都没有显著差异。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Open Access Surgery is an international, peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that focuses on all aspects of surgical procedures and interventions. Patient care around the peri-operative period and patient outcomes post surgery are key topics for the journal. All grades of surgery from minor cosmetic interventions to major surgical procedures will be covered. Novel techniques and the utilization of new instruments and materials, including implants and prostheses that optimize outcomes constitute major areas of interest. Contributions regarding patient satisfaction, preference, quality of life, and their role in optimizing new surgical procedures will be welcomed. The journal is characterized by the rapid reporting of case reports, clinical studies, reviews and original research.
期刊最新文献
Affinity of Colonic Granular Cell Tumor Within the Right Colon: Case Report and Review of Literature Rare Classic Presentation of Primary Hyperparathyroidism: A Case Report and Literature Review Treatment Outcomes of Non-Traumatic Acute Abdomen and Its Associated Factors in Adult Patients at Tibebe Ghion Specialized Hospital, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia: Cross-Sectional Study Cecal Volvulus in Pregnancy, a Diagnostic Dilemma and Management: A Case Report and Literature Review Appendicitis During Pregnancy: Best Surgical Practices and Clinical Management
×
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