Comparing the Efficiency of Laryngeal Mask Airway and Endotracheal Tube Insertion in Airway Management in Patients Planning for Elective Orthopedic Surgery under General Anesthesia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Mehrdad Malekshoar, Pourya Adibi, Hashem Jarineshin, Ehsan Tavassoli, Navid Kalani, Tayyebeh Zarei, Mehrdad Sayadinia, Majid Vatankhah
{"title":"Comparing the Efficiency of Laryngeal Mask Airway and Endotracheal Tube Insertion in Airway Management in Patients Planning for Elective Orthopedic Surgery under General Anesthesia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Mehrdad Malekshoar, Pourya Adibi, Hashem Jarineshin, Ehsan Tavassoli, Navid Kalani, Tayyebeh Zarei, Mehrdad Sayadinia, Majid Vatankhah","doi":"10.30476/beat.2024.102372.1509","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The present study compared respiratory parameters between the two methods of airway establishment, ETT and LMA, for patients scheduled for orthopedic surgery with general anesthesia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This randomized double-blinded clinical trial was conducted on patients scheduled for elective orthopedic surgery under general anesthesia, in Bandar Abbas, Iran, from January 2021 to December 2021. Using a random allocation table, the study participants were randomly divided into two groups, to employ either ETT (n=48) or LMA insertion (n=48). The study's ultimate goal was to assess the respiratory parameters in 1, 3, 5, 10, and 15 minutes following intubation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At all-time points, the average of peak airway pressure (P peak) and P plateau parameters in the ETT group was much higher than the EMA group (<i>p</i><0.001 in all comparisons). The value of dynamic lung compliance in the LMA group was significantly higher than the ETT group in all considered time periods (<i>p</i><0.001 in all comparisons). The upward trend in the value of this index was significant only in the LMA group (<i>p</i>=0.030). There were no significant differences in arterial oxygen saturation and end-tidal carbon dioxide levels between the two groups (<i>p</i>>0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In terms of arterial oxygen saturation stability and at the same time providing respiratory dynamic compliance, the LMA device outperformed the ETT.</p>","PeriodicalId":9333,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of emergency and trauma","volume":"12 3","pages":"111-116"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11462110/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of emergency and trauma","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30476/beat.2024.102372.1509","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

Objectives: The present study compared respiratory parameters between the two methods of airway establishment, ETT and LMA, for patients scheduled for orthopedic surgery with general anesthesia.

Methods: This randomized double-blinded clinical trial was conducted on patients scheduled for elective orthopedic surgery under general anesthesia, in Bandar Abbas, Iran, from January 2021 to December 2021. Using a random allocation table, the study participants were randomly divided into two groups, to employ either ETT (n=48) or LMA insertion (n=48). The study's ultimate goal was to assess the respiratory parameters in 1, 3, 5, 10, and 15 minutes following intubation.

Results: At all-time points, the average of peak airway pressure (P peak) and P plateau parameters in the ETT group was much higher than the EMA group (p<0.001 in all comparisons). The value of dynamic lung compliance in the LMA group was significantly higher than the ETT group in all considered time periods (p<0.001 in all comparisons). The upward trend in the value of this index was significant only in the LMA group (p=0.030). There were no significant differences in arterial oxygen saturation and end-tidal carbon dioxide levels between the two groups (p>0.05).

Conclusion: In terms of arterial oxygen saturation stability and at the same time providing respiratory dynamic compliance, the LMA device outperformed the ETT.

比较喉罩通气道和气管插管在全身麻醉下计划进行骨科择期手术的患者气道管理中的效率:随机临床试验。
目的:本研究比较了两种气道建立方法(ETT 和 LMA)对全身麻醉下骨科手术患者的呼吸参数:本研究比较了两种气道建立方法(ETT 和 LMA)对计划在全身麻醉下进行骨科手术的患者的呼吸参数:这项随机双盲临床试验于 2021 年 1 月至 2021 年 12 月在伊朗阿巴斯港对计划在全身麻醉下接受骨科手术的患者进行。通过随机分配表,研究参与者被随机分为两组,分别采用 ETT(48 人)或 LMA 插入(48 人)。研究的最终目标是评估插管后 1、3、5、10 和 15 分钟内的呼吸参数:在所有时间点上,ETT 组的气道压力峰值(P 峰)和 P 高原参数的平均值均远高于 EMA 组(ppp=0.030)。两组的动脉血氧饱和度和潮气末二氧化碳水平无明显差异(P>0.05):结论:就动脉血氧饱和度的稳定性和同时提供呼吸动态顺应性而言,LMA 装置优于 ETT。
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
49
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: BEAT: Bulletin of Emergency And Trauma is an international, peer-reviewed, quarterly journal coping with original research contributing to the field of emergency medicine and trauma. BEAT is the official journal of the Trauma Research Center (TRC) of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (SUMS), Hungarian Trauma Society (HTS) and Lusitanian Association for Trauma and Emergency Surgery (ALTEC/LATES) aiming to be a publication of international repute that serves as a medium for dissemination and exchange of scientific knowledge in the emergency medicine and trauma. The aim of BEAT is to publish original research focusing on practicing and training of emergency medicine and trauma to publish peer-reviewed articles of current international interest in the form of original articles, brief communications, reviews, case reports, clinical images, and letters.
×
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