Usefulness of bougie-preloaded proseal laryngeal mask airway versus digital insertion technique in correct placement of the device.

IF 1.5 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Jacob Mathew, Sunil Rajan, Karthik C Babu, Kruthika S Manoharan, Jerry Paul, Lakshmi Kumar
{"title":"Usefulness of bougie-preloaded proseal laryngeal mask airway versus digital insertion technique in correct placement of the device.","authors":"Jacob Mathew, Sunil Rajan, Karthik C Babu, Kruthika S Manoharan, Jerry Paul, Lakshmi Kumar","doi":"10.4103/joacp.joacp_72_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Digital technique of proseal laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) insertion carries high chance of failed first attempt successful placement. We aimed to compare the number of attempts taken for correct placement of bougie-preloaded PLMA versus traditional digital insertion technique. Ease of insertion, time taken, hemodynamic responses during insertion, and evidence of trauma were also assessed.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>This prospective, randomized, open-label study was performed in 60 patients. All patients were administered general anesthesia according to a standardized protocol.After induction of general anesthesia in group P, proseal insertion was performed following the traditional digital technique. In group B, bougie-preloaded PLMA was used. A soft gum elastic bougie was passed through the gastric channel of PLMA, with 15cm protruding distally through the gastric port. Attempts at successful insertion and ease of insertion were noted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Time taken for successful insertion was significantly shorter in group B compared to group P (15.3 ± 4.5 vs. 57 ± 12.02 s, respectively). The first attempt success in group B was 90% versus 60% in group P. The number of moderate to hard insertion was significantly lesser in group B (10 vs. 40, respectively). Blood stain on device was seen in 3.3% in group B compared to 30% in group P. MAP at insertion and at 1, 3, and 5 min was significantly higher in group P. Heart rates were comparable.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Bougie-preloaded proseal insertion has significantly higher first attempt insertion success rates and is significantly faster and less traumatic with blunted blood pressure response compared to traditional digital insertion technique.</p>","PeriodicalId":14946,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10805196/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_72_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: Digital technique of proseal laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) insertion carries high chance of failed first attempt successful placement. We aimed to compare the number of attempts taken for correct placement of bougie-preloaded PLMA versus traditional digital insertion technique. Ease of insertion, time taken, hemodynamic responses during insertion, and evidence of trauma were also assessed.

Material and methods: This prospective, randomized, open-label study was performed in 60 patients. All patients were administered general anesthesia according to a standardized protocol.After induction of general anesthesia in group P, proseal insertion was performed following the traditional digital technique. In group B, bougie-preloaded PLMA was used. A soft gum elastic bougie was passed through the gastric channel of PLMA, with 15cm protruding distally through the gastric port. Attempts at successful insertion and ease of insertion were noted.

Results: Time taken for successful insertion was significantly shorter in group B compared to group P (15.3 ± 4.5 vs. 57 ± 12.02 s, respectively). The first attempt success in group B was 90% versus 60% in group P. The number of moderate to hard insertion was significantly lesser in group B (10 vs. 40, respectively). Blood stain on device was seen in 3.3% in group B compared to 30% in group P. MAP at insertion and at 1, 3, and 5 min was significantly higher in group P. Heart rates were comparable.

Conclusion: Bougie-preloaded proseal insertion has significantly higher first attempt insertion success rates and is significantly faster and less traumatic with blunted blood pressure response compared to traditional digital insertion technique.

探条预载喉前罩气道与数字插入技术在正确放置装置中的作用
背景和目的:数字喉罩通气道(PLMA)置入技术有很高的首次置入失败率。我们的目的是比较正确置入预装通气导管的 PLMA 与传统数字插入技术的尝试次数。我们还评估了插入的难易程度、所需时间、插入过程中的血流动力学反应以及创伤证据:这项前瞻性、随机、开放标签研究在 60 名患者中进行。P 组患者在全身麻醉诱导后,采用传统的数字技术插入假体。在 B 组中,使用的是预先装有口塞的 PLMA。通过 PLMA 的胃部通道插入一个柔软的胶质弹性咬合器,咬合器从胃部端口向远端突出 15 厘米。结果:结果:与 P 组相比,B 组成功插入的时间明显更短(分别为 15.3±4.5 秒和 57±12.02 秒)。B 组的首次插入成功率为 90%,而 P 组为 60%。B 组的中度至重度插入次数明显较少(分别为 10 次和 40 次)。插入时以及 1、3 和 5 分钟时的血压(MAP)在 B 组明显高于 P 组:结论:与传统的数字插入技术相比,预先装入导尿管的导尿管首次插入成功率明显更高,速度明显更快,创伤更小,血压反应更迟钝。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信