Baska mask vs ProSeal Laryngeal mask on airway seal pressure in cases undergoing general anesthesia by mechanical ventilation: A randomized controlled trial

IF 0.6 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Shady Rady Abdalla, A. Mohamed, Marianne Magdy Roshdy, Maha Mohamed Ismail, Ashraf Mohamed Abdelreheem, W. M. Bahnas, M. Soliman
{"title":"Baska mask vs ProSeal Laryngeal mask on airway seal pressure in cases undergoing general anesthesia by mechanical ventilation: A randomized controlled trial","authors":"Shady Rady Abdalla, A. Mohamed, Marianne Magdy Roshdy, Maha Mohamed Ismail, Ashraf Mohamed Abdelreheem, W. M. Bahnas, M. Soliman","doi":"10.1080/11101849.2023.2240662","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background Supraglottic Airway Devices (SGAs) are designed to counteract the drawbacks of endotracheal intubation. They have proven to be easy to use, robust, versatile, and usable in many difficult situations. This work aims to investigate the use of the Baska Mask (BM) airway and ProSeal™ Laryngeal Mask Airway (PLMA) as SGAs for ventilation. Methods This randomized controlled trial was carried out on 74 cases aged 21–65 years old for elective surgery of a planned duration of up to 2 h during general anaesthesia with intermittent positive pressure ventilation. Cases were divided into two equal groups. Ventilation was done either by BM® Airway (group BM) or PLMA (group PLMA). Results BM had a shorter insertion time and lower leak fraction versus PLMA, while seal pressure elevated significantly with BM versus PLMA (P < 0.001). PLMA had significantly more cases than the BM mask group complaining of a sore throat at 2 h (P = 0.042). Complication after gastric tube insertion was parallel between both groups. Conclusions BM can be used successfully during anesthesia as it displays a shorter insertion time, lower leak fraction, higher seal pressure, and lower incidence of sore throat and gastric tube insertion complications than PLMA.","PeriodicalId":11437,"journal":{"name":"Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/11101849.2023.2240662","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background Supraglottic Airway Devices (SGAs) are designed to counteract the drawbacks of endotracheal intubation. They have proven to be easy to use, robust, versatile, and usable in many difficult situations. This work aims to investigate the use of the Baska Mask (BM) airway and ProSeal™ Laryngeal Mask Airway (PLMA) as SGAs for ventilation. Methods This randomized controlled trial was carried out on 74 cases aged 21–65 years old for elective surgery of a planned duration of up to 2 h during general anaesthesia with intermittent positive pressure ventilation. Cases were divided into two equal groups. Ventilation was done either by BM® Airway (group BM) or PLMA (group PLMA). Results BM had a shorter insertion time and lower leak fraction versus PLMA, while seal pressure elevated significantly with BM versus PLMA (P < 0.001). PLMA had significantly more cases than the BM mask group complaining of a sore throat at 2 h (P = 0.042). Complication after gastric tube insertion was parallel between both groups. Conclusions BM can be used successfully during anesthesia as it displays a shorter insertion time, lower leak fraction, higher seal pressure, and lower incidence of sore throat and gastric tube insertion complications than PLMA.
Baska面罩与ProSeal喉面罩对机械通气全麻病例气道密封压力的影响:一项随机对照试验
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
Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia
Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
78
×
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