一项随机比较研究,观察I凝胶和重排式喉罩用于短时间外科手术患者全身麻醉下的安全性和有效性

IF 0.2 Q4 ANESTHESIOLOGY Indian Anaesthetists Forum Pub Date : 2022-07-01 DOI:10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_39_22
A. Khare, Poonam Awana, Beena Thada, Veena Mathur, P. Kumar
{"title":"一项随机比较研究,观察I凝胶和重排式喉罩用于短时间外科手术患者全身麻醉下的安全性和有效性","authors":"A. Khare, Poonam Awana, Beena Thada, Veena Mathur, P. Kumar","doi":"10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_39_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and Aims: Blockbuster laryngeal mask airway (LMA), a newer supraglottic airway device, provides a quick and reliable seal of the airway, making it useful for positive pressure ventilation. This randomized comparative study was undertaken to compare the safety and efficacy of I-gel and Blockbuster LMA used in short surgical procedures under general anesthesia. Materials and Methods: Hundred patients of either sex aged between 18 and 60 years belonging to the American Society of Anesthesiologist physical Status I and II undergoing general anesthesia were randomized into two groups of 50 patients each, using either I-gel (Group IG) or Blockbuster LMA (Group BB). After standard monitoring and induction of anesthesia, LMA was inserted according to their randomized groups and adequate ventilation was achieved. The primary objectives were grading of ease of insertion and time taken for successful insertion of device, while number of attempts for insertion, oropharyngeal seal pressure (OSP), hemodynamic changes, and adverse effects such as blood staining of device, injury of lips, tongue and teeth, postoperative hoarseness of voice and sore throat were secondary objectives. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 3.0.0.34. Results: The ease of insertion was graded as very easy in 46 patients in Group BB and 26 patients in Group IG (P < 0.001). The mean time for insertion was less with Group BB (24.30 ± 3.91 s) as compared to Group IG (29.50 ± 12.5 s) (P < 0.0001). 48 patients in Group BB while 37 patients in Group IG (P = 0.008) were required one attempt for insertion. The average OSP was 22.59 ± 1.44 cmH2O in Group BB as compared to 20.88 ± 2.22 cmH2O in Group IG (P < 0.0001). Hemodynamic changes were comparable at different time intervals. Complications such as blood stain of device and sore throat were more with I-gel. Conclusions: The Blockbuster LMA is an effective alternative to I-gel with faster, easier insertion, required a smaller number of attempts, high airway sealing pressure with stable hemodynamic, and less incidence of blood staining and postoperative sore throat.","PeriodicalId":42359,"journal":{"name":"Indian Anaesthetists Forum","volume":"23 1","pages":"111 - 117"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Randomized comparative study to observe the safety and efficacy of I gel and blockbuster laryngeal mask airway used in patients undergoing short surgical procedure under general anesthesia\",\"authors\":\"A. Khare, Poonam Awana, Beena Thada, Veena Mathur, P. Kumar\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_39_22\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background and Aims: Blockbuster laryngeal mask airway (LMA), a newer supraglottic airway device, provides a quick and reliable seal of the airway, making it useful for positive pressure ventilation. This randomized comparative study was undertaken to compare the safety and efficacy of I-gel and Blockbuster LMA used in short surgical procedures under general anesthesia. Materials and Methods: Hundred patients of either sex aged between 18 and 60 years belonging to the American Society of Anesthesiologist physical Status I and II undergoing general anesthesia were randomized into two groups of 50 patients each, using either I-gel (Group IG) or Blockbuster LMA (Group BB). After standard monitoring and induction of anesthesia, LMA was inserted according to their randomized groups and adequate ventilation was achieved. The primary objectives were grading of ease of insertion and time taken for successful insertion of device, while number of attempts for insertion, oropharyngeal seal pressure (OSP), hemodynamic changes, and adverse effects such as blood staining of device, injury of lips, tongue and teeth, postoperative hoarseness of voice and sore throat were secondary objectives. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 3.0.0.34. Results: The ease of insertion was graded as very easy in 46 patients in Group BB and 26 patients in Group IG (P < 0.001). The mean time for insertion was less with Group BB (24.30 ± 3.91 s) as compared to Group IG (29.50 ± 12.5 s) (P < 0.0001). 48 patients in Group BB while 37 patients in Group IG (P = 0.008) were required one attempt for insertion. The average OSP was 22.59 ± 1.44 cmH2O in Group BB as compared to 20.88 ± 2.22 cmH2O in Group IG (P < 0.0001). Hemodynamic changes were comparable at different time intervals. Complications such as blood stain of device and sore throat were more with I-gel. Conclusions: The Blockbuster LMA is an effective alternative to I-gel with faster, easier insertion, required a smaller number of attempts, high airway sealing pressure with stable hemodynamic, and less incidence of blood staining and postoperative sore throat.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42359,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Anaesthetists Forum\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"111 - 117\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Anaesthetists Forum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_39_22\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Anaesthetists Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_39_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

背景与目的:百视达喉罩气道(Blockbuster喉罩气道)是一种新型的声门上气道装置,它能快速可靠地封闭气道,有助于正压通气。这项随机比较研究是为了比较I-gel和Blockbuster LMA在全身麻醉下用于短时间外科手术的安全性和有效性。材料与方法:将100例年龄在18 ~ 60岁,属于美国麻醉医师身体状态I和II学会的全麻患者随机分为两组,每组50例,分别使用I-gel (IG组)和Blockbuster LMA (BB组)。在标准监测和诱导麻醉后,按随机分组插入LMA,并达到充分通气。主要目标是对插入的难易程度和成功插入装置所花费的时间进行分级,而插入次数、口咽密封压(OSP)、血流动力学变化以及装置的血渍、嘴唇、舌头和牙齿损伤、术后声音沙哑和喉咙痛等不良反应是次要目标。数据分析采用SPSS 3.0.0.34版本。结果:BB组46例,IG组26例,插入难易程度为非常容易(P < 0.001)。BB组平均插入时间(24.30±3.91 s)短于IG组(29.50±12.5 s) (P < 0.0001)。BB组48例(P = 0.008), IG组37例(P = 0.008)。BB组平均OSP为22.59±1.44 cmH2O, IG组为20.88±2.22 cmH2O (P < 0.0001)。不同时间间隔的血流动力学变化具有可比性。I-gel治疗后器械血渍、咽喉痛等并发症较多。结论:百视达LMA是I-gel的有效替代品,其插入速度更快,更容易,需要较少的尝试次数,气道密封压力高,血流动力学稳定,血液染色和术后喉咙痛发生率低。
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 Randomized comparative study to observe the safety and efficacy of I gel and blockbuster laryngeal mask airway used in patients undergoing short surgical procedure under general anesthesia
Background and Aims: Blockbuster laryngeal mask airway (LMA), a newer supraglottic airway device, provides a quick and reliable seal of the airway, making it useful for positive pressure ventilation. This randomized comparative study was undertaken to compare the safety and efficacy of I-gel and Blockbuster LMA used in short surgical procedures under general anesthesia. Materials and Methods: Hundred patients of either sex aged between 18 and 60 years belonging to the American Society of Anesthesiologist physical Status I and II undergoing general anesthesia were randomized into two groups of 50 patients each, using either I-gel (Group IG) or Blockbuster LMA (Group BB). After standard monitoring and induction of anesthesia, LMA was inserted according to their randomized groups and adequate ventilation was achieved. The primary objectives were grading of ease of insertion and time taken for successful insertion of device, while number of attempts for insertion, oropharyngeal seal pressure (OSP), hemodynamic changes, and adverse effects such as blood staining of device, injury of lips, tongue and teeth, postoperative hoarseness of voice and sore throat were secondary objectives. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 3.0.0.34. Results: The ease of insertion was graded as very easy in 46 patients in Group BB and 26 patients in Group IG (P < 0.001). The mean time for insertion was less with Group BB (24.30 ± 3.91 s) as compared to Group IG (29.50 ± 12.5 s) (P < 0.0001). 48 patients in Group BB while 37 patients in Group IG (P = 0.008) were required one attempt for insertion. The average OSP was 22.59 ± 1.44 cmH2O in Group BB as compared to 20.88 ± 2.22 cmH2O in Group IG (P < 0.0001). Hemodynamic changes were comparable at different time intervals. Complications such as blood stain of device and sore throat were more with I-gel. Conclusions: The Blockbuster LMA is an effective alternative to I-gel with faster, easier insertion, required a smaller number of attempts, high airway sealing pressure with stable hemodynamic, and less incidence of blood staining and postoperative sore throat.
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
Indian Anaesthetists Forum
Indian Anaesthetists Forum ANESTHESIOLOGY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Cardiovascular complications in coronavirus disease-2019 patients Refractory hypokalemia in intensive care unit: Efforts in vain Evaluation of effect of dexamethasone and bicarbonate as adjuvants to intracuff lignocaine on endotracheal tube tolerance during emergence and incidence of postoperative cough and sore throat Is it popliteal artery? Is it popliteal vein? No it is persistent sciatic vein Mortality predictors during the third wave of COVID-19 pandemic: A multicentric retrospective analysis from tertiary care centers of Western India
×
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