Laryngeal mask airway proseal versus laryngeal mask airway protector for laparoscopic surgery: A randomized comparative study.

IF 1.5 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Vinod K Srivastava, Rajesh Raman, Rati Prabha, Deshraj Verma, Brij B Kushwaha, Shefali Gautam
{"title":"Laryngeal mask airway proseal versus laryngeal mask airway protector for laparoscopic surgery: A randomized comparative study.","authors":"Vinod K Srivastava, Rajesh Raman, Rati Prabha, Deshraj Verma, Brij B Kushwaha, Shefali Gautam","doi":"10.4103/joacp.joacp_430_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Laryngeal Mask Airway Protector (LMPt) and Laryngeal Mask Airway Proseal (LMPs) have a high oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) but have not been compared for laparoscopic surgery. It was hypothesized that LMPs and LMPt have different clinical performances while managing the airway of patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. The aim of the study was to compare the LMPs and LMPt for managing the airway of patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>This was a prospective, single-blind, randomized, comparative trial. It included adult patients of either gender with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I/II planned for elective laparoscopic surgery. The airway of the recruited subjects was managed with either LMPs (group R, n = 60) or LMPt (group T, n = 60). OLP was the primary outcome variable. Number of attempts, insertion success, device insertion duration, ease of insertion, hemodynamics, gastric tube insertion, and complications were secondary outcome variables. Numerical data and dichotomous data were analyzed using student's <i>t</i>-test and χ<sup>2</sup> test, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The OLP was statistically greater (<i>P</i> < 0.001) in group T before (30.23 ± 1.48 vs. 25.33 ± 1.40 cm H<sub>2</sub>O) and during (31.77 ± 0.65 vs. 27.12 ± 1.11 cm H<sub>2</sub>O) the pneumoperitoneum. The baseline and secondary outcome variables were statistically similar between the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>For patients undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery, both LMPt and LMPs are suitable for airway management, but LMPt provides a higher OLP. More trials are required to validate these findings across different surgical settings and patient populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":14946,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology","volume":"41 3","pages":"532-537"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12237236/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/joacp.joacp_430_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: Laryngeal Mask Airway Protector (LMPt) and Laryngeal Mask Airway Proseal (LMPs) have a high oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) but have not been compared for laparoscopic surgery. It was hypothesized that LMPs and LMPt have different clinical performances while managing the airway of patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. The aim of the study was to compare the LMPs and LMPt for managing the airway of patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

Material and methods: This was a prospective, single-blind, randomized, comparative trial. It included adult patients of either gender with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I/II planned for elective laparoscopic surgery. The airway of the recruited subjects was managed with either LMPs (group R, n = 60) or LMPt (group T, n = 60). OLP was the primary outcome variable. Number of attempts, insertion success, device insertion duration, ease of insertion, hemodynamics, gastric tube insertion, and complications were secondary outcome variables. Numerical data and dichotomous data were analyzed using student's t-test and χ2 test, respectively.

Results: The OLP was statistically greater (P < 0.001) in group T before (30.23 ± 1.48 vs. 25.33 ± 1.40 cm H2O) and during (31.77 ± 0.65 vs. 27.12 ± 1.11 cm H2O) the pneumoperitoneum. The baseline and secondary outcome variables were statistically similar between the groups.

Conclusions: For patients undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery, both LMPt and LMPs are suitable for airway management, but LMPt provides a higher OLP. More trials are required to validate these findings across different surgical settings and patient populations.

腹腔镜手术中喉罩与喉罩气道保护器的随机比较研究。
背景和目的:喉罩气道保护器(lpt)和喉罩气道Proseal (LMPs)具有较高的口咽漏压(OLP),但尚未在腹腔镜手术中进行比较。假设LMPs和lpt在管理腹腔镜手术患者气道方面具有不同的临床表现。本研究的目的是比较LMPs和lpt对腹腔镜手术患者气道管理的效果。材料和方法:这是一项前瞻性、单盲、随机、比较试验。它包括美国麻醉医师协会身体状态为I/II计划进行择期腹腔镜手术的成年患者。招募的受试者分别使用LMPs (R组,n = 60)或lpt (T组,n = 60)进行气道管理。OLP是主要结局变量。尝试次数、插入成功、装置插入时间、插入难易程度、血流动力学、胃管插入和并发症是次要结局变量。数值数据采用学生t检验,二分类数据采用χ2检验。结果:T组在气腹前(30.23±1.48 vs. 25.33±1.40 cm H2O)和气腹时(31.77±0.65 vs. 27.12±1.11 cm H2O)的OLP差异有统计学意义(P < 0.001)。两组间的基线和次要结果变量在统计学上相似。结论:对于择期腹腔镜手术患者,LMPt和LMPs均适用于气道管理,但LMPt提供更高的OLP。需要更多的试验在不同的手术环境和患者群体中验证这些发现。
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
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
129
期刊介绍: The JOACP publishes original peer-reviewed research and clinical work in all branches of anaesthesiology, pain, critical care and perioperative medicine including the application to basic sciences. In addition, the journal publishes review articles, special articles, brief communications/reports, case reports, and reports of new equipment, letters to editor, book reviews and obituaries. It is international in scope and comprehensive in coverage.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信