Comparison of Laryngeal tube suction II (LTS II) and Proseal laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) for controlled ventilation in anaesthetised and paralysed adult patients

IF 0.2 Q4 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM Indian Journal of Respiratory Care Pub Date : 2022-12-05 DOI:10.5005/jp-journals-11010-02105
N. Jasmine, A. Shenoy, Daniel Thomas Anjilivelil
{"title":"Comparison of Laryngeal tube suction II (LTS II) and Proseal laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) for controlled ventilation in anaesthetised and paralysed adult patients","authors":"N. Jasmine, A. Shenoy, Daniel Thomas Anjilivelil","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-11010-02105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: LTS II and PLMA are supraglottic devices that may be used for ventilation in patients with normal as well as difficult airways at risk of aspiration. Aim: Comparison of LTS II with PLMA during controlled ventilation in paralysed patients with respect to time to successful insertion, success rate of insertion, attempts at repositioning, airway leak pressure, ease of ventilation and Ryle’s tube insertion, fibreoptic laryngeal view and complications. Methods: Thirty patients were studied using a prospective, randomised cross-over design. Ethical committee clearance and informed consent were obtained from all patients. Anaesthesia was induced with propofol and fentanyl and neuromuscular blockade achieved with vecuronium. Patients were divided into two groups: Group LTS and Group PLMA. In each group, the first airway device was inserted, various parameters observed and then removed. The second airway device was then inserted and the same parameters noted. Anaesthesia was continued with the second device in position. Results: Success with insertion at first attempt and time to insertion were comparable with both devices [LTS II 27/30 (17.5 s) and PLMA 29/30 (15.5 s) respectively]. PLMA required repositioning in fewer patients and provided better fibreoptic view than LTS II. Ryle’s tube insertion failed in four patients with PLMA but in none with LTS II. No significant difference was found in the airway seal pressure [mean, PLMA (27 cm H2 O) and LTS II (26.4 cm H2 O)], ease of ventilation or overall complications. Conclusion: Insertion and ventilation are comparable with PLMA and LTS II. Ryle’s tube insertion is easier with LTS II but requires more repositioning attempts and does not provide a good view of the larynx","PeriodicalId":53846,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Respiratory Care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Respiratory Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-11010-02105","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: LTS II and PLMA are supraglottic devices that may be used for ventilation in patients with normal as well as difficult airways at risk of aspiration. Aim: Comparison of LTS II with PLMA during controlled ventilation in paralysed patients with respect to time to successful insertion, success rate of insertion, attempts at repositioning, airway leak pressure, ease of ventilation and Ryle’s tube insertion, fibreoptic laryngeal view and complications. Methods: Thirty patients were studied using a prospective, randomised cross-over design. Ethical committee clearance and informed consent were obtained from all patients. Anaesthesia was induced with propofol and fentanyl and neuromuscular blockade achieved with vecuronium. Patients were divided into two groups: Group LTS and Group PLMA. In each group, the first airway device was inserted, various parameters observed and then removed. The second airway device was then inserted and the same parameters noted. Anaesthesia was continued with the second device in position. Results: Success with insertion at first attempt and time to insertion were comparable with both devices [LTS II 27/30 (17.5 s) and PLMA 29/30 (15.5 s) respectively]. PLMA required repositioning in fewer patients and provided better fibreoptic view than LTS II. Ryle’s tube insertion failed in four patients with PLMA but in none with LTS II. No significant difference was found in the airway seal pressure [mean, PLMA (27 cm H2 O) and LTS II (26.4 cm H2 O)], ease of ventilation or overall complications. Conclusion: Insertion and ventilation are comparable with PLMA and LTS II. Ryle’s tube insertion is easier with LTS II but requires more repositioning attempts and does not provide a good view of the larynx
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
喉导管抽吸II(TTS-II)和Prosecal喉罩气道(PLMA)在麻醉和瘫痪成年患者控制通气中的比较
背景:TTSII和PLMA是声门上设备,可用于气道正常和困难的有误吸风险的患者的通气。目的:在瘫痪患者控制通气期间,比较TTS-II和PLMA在成功插入时间、插入成功率、重新定位尝试、气道渗漏压力、通气和Ryle管插入的容易程度、喉纤维视图和并发症方面的效果。方法:采用前瞻性随机交叉设计对30例患者进行研究。所有患者都获得了伦理委员会的批准和知情同意。丙泊酚和芬太尼诱导麻醉,维库溴铵实现神经肌肉阻滞。将患者分为两组:LTS组和PLMA组。在每组中,插入第一个气道装置,观察各种参数,然后取出。然后插入第二个气道装置,并记录相同的参数。在第二个装置就位的情况下继续进行麻醉。结果:第一次尝试插入的成功率和插入时间与两种装置相当[TTS II 27/30(17.5 s)和PLMA 29/30(15.5 s)]。PLMA需要在更少的患者中重新定位,并且提供了比TTSII更好的光纤视图。Ryle导管插入在4名PLMA患者中失败,但在LTSII患者中没有一例失败。气道密封压力[平均PLMA(27 cm H2 O)和LTS II(26.4 cm H2 O。结论:插入和通气与PLMA和TTSII相当。Ryle的插管在TTSII中更容易,但需要更多的重新定位尝试,并且不能很好地观察喉部
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
66.70%
发文量
1
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of a Panel of Biomarkers in the Diagnosis of Lung Cancer: An Observational Study Precision Medicine in Respiratory Care: Where do We Stand Now? A Study of COVID-19 Infected Patients with Tuberculosis as Comorbidity and on Antitubercular Drug Therapy Paradigm Shift in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Management: Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2023 Pulmonary Nocardiosis with Esophageal Involvement: A Rare Imaging Finding
×
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