Comparative evaluation of insertion characteristics of PLMA using different techniques in the pediatric age group

Suman Tiwari, Anita Seth
{"title":"Comparative evaluation of insertion characteristics of PLMA using different techniques in the pediatric age group","authors":"Suman Tiwari, Anita Seth","doi":"10.4103/joacp.joacp_258_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n The laryngeal mask airway ProSeal (PLMA) insertion should be easy, fast, and atraumatic. Most studies have been done on adults who cannot be considered as the reflection of pediatric patients. In this study, we compared the first attempt success rate of three techniques of PLMA insertion: introducer, 90° rotation, and pharyngoscopy technique in the pediatric population.\n \n \n \n In this prospective comparative randomized study, a total of 135 patients of American Society of Anesthesiology grade I and II, aged three to eleven years, with normal airways scheduled for elective surgery, were randomly allocated into three groups: introducer, 90° rotation, and pharyngoscopy group. Parameters evaluated were: first attempt insertion success rate, insertion time, ease of insertion score, hemodynamic parameters, oropharyngeal seal pressure, manipulations, PLMA blood staining, postoperative sore throat, and hoarseness.\n \n \n \n First attempt insertion success rate was higher in the 90° rotation (97.78%) and pharyngoscopy (97.78%) group as compared to the introducer group (93.33%). But the result was not statistically significant. PLMA insertion time was the least in the rotation group, followed by the pharyngoscopy and introducer group (P < 0.0001). Mean arterial pressure and heart rate were significantly raised in the pharyngoscopy versus rotation group and the introducer versus 90° rotation group after PLMA insertion. Oropharyngeal seal pressure was significantly higher in the introducer as compared to the rotation group (P = 0.007).\n \n \n \n All three techniques had a high first-attempt insertion success rate. As the rotation technique had the best result in insertion time and hemodynamic response, it may be considered a good alternative to pharyngoscopy and introducer technique in pediatric patients of age three to eleven years with a normal airway.\n \n \n \n Several studies on PLMA insertion technique in adults are present, but few in the pediatric population. Introducer, pharyngoscopy, and 90° rotation technique were compared. The rotation technique was better in terms of insertion time and hemodynamic stability.\n","PeriodicalId":508221,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology","volume":"14 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/joacp.joacp_258_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The laryngeal mask airway ProSeal (PLMA) insertion should be easy, fast, and atraumatic. Most studies have been done on adults who cannot be considered as the reflection of pediatric patients. In this study, we compared the first attempt success rate of three techniques of PLMA insertion: introducer, 90° rotation, and pharyngoscopy technique in the pediatric population. In this prospective comparative randomized study, a total of 135 patients of American Society of Anesthesiology grade I and II, aged three to eleven years, with normal airways scheduled for elective surgery, were randomly allocated into three groups: introducer, 90° rotation, and pharyngoscopy group. Parameters evaluated were: first attempt insertion success rate, insertion time, ease of insertion score, hemodynamic parameters, oropharyngeal seal pressure, manipulations, PLMA blood staining, postoperative sore throat, and hoarseness. First attempt insertion success rate was higher in the 90° rotation (97.78%) and pharyngoscopy (97.78%) group as compared to the introducer group (93.33%). But the result was not statistically significant. PLMA insertion time was the least in the rotation group, followed by the pharyngoscopy and introducer group (P < 0.0001). Mean arterial pressure and heart rate were significantly raised in the pharyngoscopy versus rotation group and the introducer versus 90° rotation group after PLMA insertion. Oropharyngeal seal pressure was significantly higher in the introducer as compared to the rotation group (P = 0.007). All three techniques had a high first-attempt insertion success rate. As the rotation technique had the best result in insertion time and hemodynamic response, it may be considered a good alternative to pharyngoscopy and introducer technique in pediatric patients of age three to eleven years with a normal airway. Several studies on PLMA insertion technique in adults are present, but few in the pediatric population. Introducer, pharyngoscopy, and 90° rotation technique were compared. The rotation technique was better in terms of insertion time and hemodynamic stability.
在儿科年龄组中使用不同技术比较评估 PLMA 的插入特性
喉罩气道 ProSeal(PLMA)的插入应该简单、快速、无创伤。大多数研究都是针对成人进行的,而成人并不能反映儿科患者的情况。在这项研究中,我们比较了在儿科人群中首次尝试插入 PLMA 的三种技术:导入器、90° 旋转和咽喉镜技术的成功率。 在这项前瞻性随机对比研究中,我们将 135 名美国麻醉学会 I 级和 II 级、年龄在 3 到 11 岁之间、气道正常的择期手术患者随机分配到三组:导入器组、90° 旋转组和咽喉镜组。评估参数包括:首次尝试插入成功率、插入时间、插入难易度评分、血液动力学参数、口咽密封压、操作、PLMA 血染、术后咽喉疼痛和声音嘶哑。 与导入器组(93.33%)相比,90° 旋转组(97.78%)和咽喉镜组(97.78%)的首次尝试插入成功率更高。但这一结果没有统计学意义。旋转组的 PLMA 插入时间最短,其次是咽喉镜组和导入器组(P < 0.0001)。插入 PLMA 后,咽喉镜组相对于旋转组以及导入器组相对于 90° 旋转组的平均动脉压和心率明显升高。与旋转组相比,导入器组的口咽密封压明显更高(P = 0.007)。 三种技术的首次尝试插入成功率都很高。由于旋转技术在插入时间和血流动力学反应方面效果最佳,因此对于 3-11 岁气道正常的儿科患者来说,它可被视为咽喉镜检查和导入器技术的良好替代方法。 目前已有多项关于成人 PLMA 插入技术的研究,但针对儿科人群的研究很少。我们对导引器、咽喉镜和 90° 旋转技术进行了比较。旋转技术在插入时间和血液动力学稳定性方面更胜一筹。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信