Air-Q与I-Gel在全麻下择期手术中插入条件及辅助插管的比较

Babita Ramdev, Heena Goyal, Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Archit Sharma
{"title":"Air-Q与I-Gel在全麻下择期手术中插入条件及辅助插管的比较","authors":"Babita Ramdev, Heena Goyal, Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Archit Sharma","doi":"10.14260/jemds.v11i13.291","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND \nSupraglottic airway devices (SAD) like air Q and I-Gel are widely used in place of tracheal intubation for general anaesthesia. The present study was undertaken to compare the insertion conditions of these two supraglottic airway devices and as conduits for endotracheal tube (ETT) insertion in adult patients undergoing elective surgeries. \nMETHODS \n100 patients belonging to American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade 1 and 2 between 18 to 70 years were randomly divided into 2 groups of 50 each. In group A, Air-Q was used and in group B, I-gel. The following parameters were compared while inserting SAD and endotracheal tube (ETT): number of insertion attempts, insertion time, ease of insertion, intraoperative and postoperative complications. \nRESULTS \nInsertion in first attempt was 90 % in air- Q and 72 % in I-gel. The mean time of insertion for air-Q was 7.28  1.46 seconds which  was shorter as compared to I-gel which was 8.46  2.18 seconds (p = 0.002). Air Q was easy to insert in 93 % cases and I-Gel in 52 % cases. ETT insertion through Air-Q was easy when compared to I-Gel .Complications occurred in some patients in both the groups. \nCONCLUSIONS \nWe concluded that Air-Q has better efficacy than I-gel in terms of insertion conditions and as a conduit for endotracheal intubation.","PeriodicalId":47072,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences-JEMDS","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison of Air-Q and I-Gel in Terms of Insertion Conditions and as Intubating Aids for Elective Surgeries under General Anaesthesia\",\"authors\":\"Babita Ramdev, Heena Goyal, Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Archit Sharma\",\"doi\":\"10.14260/jemds.v11i13.291\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND \\nSupraglottic airway devices (SAD) like air Q and I-Gel are widely used in place of tracheal intubation for general anaesthesia. The present study was undertaken to compare the insertion conditions of these two supraglottic airway devices and as conduits for endotracheal tube (ETT) insertion in adult patients undergoing elective surgeries. \\nMETHODS \\n100 patients belonging to American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade 1 and 2 between 18 to 70 years were randomly divided into 2 groups of 50 each. In group A, Air-Q was used and in group B, I-gel. The following parameters were compared while inserting SAD and endotracheal tube (ETT): number of insertion attempts, insertion time, ease of insertion, intraoperative and postoperative complications. \\nRESULTS \\nInsertion in first attempt was 90 % in air- Q and 72 % in I-gel. The mean time of insertion for air-Q was 7.28  1.46 seconds which  was shorter as compared to I-gel which was 8.46  2.18 seconds (p = 0.002). Air Q was easy to insert in 93 % cases and I-Gel in 52 % cases. ETT insertion through Air-Q was easy when compared to I-Gel .Complications occurred in some patients in both the groups. \\nCONCLUSIONS \\nWe concluded that Air-Q has better efficacy than I-gel in terms of insertion conditions and as a conduit for endotracheal intubation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47072,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences-JEMDS\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences-JEMDS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14260/jemds.v11i13.291\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences-JEMDS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14260/jemds.v11i13.291","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景声门上气道装置(SAD)如air Q和I-Gel被广泛用于代替气管插管进行全身麻醉。本研究的目的是比较这两种声门上气道装置的插入条件,以及作为气管内插管(ETT)导管在接受选择性手术的成人患者中的插入情况。方法选取年龄在18 ~ 70岁的美国麻醉医师学会(ASA) 1级和2级患者100例,随机分为2组,每组50例。A组采用Air-Q, B组采用I-gel。比较气管插管(ETT)与气管插管(SAD)的插管次数、插管时间、插管难易程度、术中及术后并发症。结果空气- Q和I-gel的首次插入率分别为90%和72%。air-Q的平均插入时间为7.28 1.46秒,比I-gel的8.46 2.18秒短(p = 0.002)。Air Q易于插入的占93%,I-Gel易于插入的占52%。与I-Gel插管相比,Air-Q插管容易,但两组均有部分患者出现并发症。结论Air-Q作为气管插管导管的置入条件优于I-gel。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
A Comparison of Air-Q and I-Gel in Terms of Insertion Conditions and as Intubating Aids for Elective Surgeries under General Anaesthesia
BACKGROUND Supraglottic airway devices (SAD) like air Q and I-Gel are widely used in place of tracheal intubation for general anaesthesia. The present study was undertaken to compare the insertion conditions of these two supraglottic airway devices and as conduits for endotracheal tube (ETT) insertion in adult patients undergoing elective surgeries. METHODS 100 patients belonging to American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade 1 and 2 between 18 to 70 years were randomly divided into 2 groups of 50 each. In group A, Air-Q was used and in group B, I-gel. The following parameters were compared while inserting SAD and endotracheal tube (ETT): number of insertion attempts, insertion time, ease of insertion, intraoperative and postoperative complications. RESULTS Insertion in first attempt was 90 % in air- Q and 72 % in I-gel. The mean time of insertion for air-Q was 7.28  1.46 seconds which  was shorter as compared to I-gel which was 8.46  2.18 seconds (p = 0.002). Air Q was easy to insert in 93 % cases and I-Gel in 52 % cases. ETT insertion through Air-Q was easy when compared to I-Gel .Complications occurred in some patients in both the groups. CONCLUSIONS We concluded that Air-Q has better efficacy than I-gel in terms of insertion conditions and as a conduit for endotracheal intubation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
180
期刊最新文献
Emphysematous Pyelonephritis with Extension of Air in the Inferior Vena Cava Cytomorphological Pattern of Neoplastic and Non-Neoplastic Breast Lesions - An Institutional Experience of a Rural Tertiary Care Center Nephrotic Syndrome in Pregnancy - Case Reports Case Report - Trauma Induced Vernet’s Syndrome Leptomeningeal Metastases in Carcinoma Rectum with Extensive Skeletal Metastasis - A Case Report
×
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