Comparison of the performance of the self-pressurized air-Q intubating laryngeal airway with the LMA–ProSeal in pediatric patients under general anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial

A. Aly, Mohamed Ghanem
{"title":"Comparison of the performance of the self-pressurized air-Q intubating laryngeal airway with the LMA–ProSeal in pediatric patients under general anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial","authors":"A. Aly, Mohamed Ghanem","doi":"10.4103/asja.asja_111_16","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Self-pressurized air-Q intubating laryngeal airway (air-Q SP) is a supraglottic airway device with a noninflatable cuff that does not need continuous monitoring of the cuff pressure. As the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) is considered the ‘state-of-the-art’ supraglottic device, we conducted this randomized trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of air-Q SP compared with that of PLMA in pediatric patients. Patients and methods The study included 70 pediatric patients aged from 4 to 15 years undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia who were randomized to either the air-Q SP group or the PLMA group. The primary outcome parameter in this study was the oropharyngeal leak pressure, and the secondary outcome parameters were ease of insertion, time of insertion, first attempt insertion success rate, number of gastric insufflations, fiberoptic glottic view, and complications related to the supraglottic airway device use. Results There was no significant difference between air-Q SP and PLMA regarding first insertion success rate, ease of insertion, oropharyngeal leak pressure, number of gastric insufflations, number of manipulations required to adjust the airway, and complications. Time to insert the air-Q SP was significantly shorter than that of PLMA (13.2±4.2 vs. 17.5±4.8 s, P=0.03). The fiberoptic view was significantly better with air-Q SP than with PLMA (P=0.018). Conclusion The performance of air-Q SP is comparable to that of PLMA as a primary airway device during general anesthesia in pediatric patients, with a shorter insertion time and better fiberoptic view for air-Q SP.","PeriodicalId":7492,"journal":{"name":"Ain-Shams Journal of Anaesthesiology","volume":"41 1","pages":"149 - 155"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ain-Shams Journal of Anaesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/asja.asja_111_16","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

Background Self-pressurized air-Q intubating laryngeal airway (air-Q SP) is a supraglottic airway device with a noninflatable cuff that does not need continuous monitoring of the cuff pressure. As the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) is considered the ‘state-of-the-art’ supraglottic device, we conducted this randomized trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of air-Q SP compared with that of PLMA in pediatric patients. Patients and methods The study included 70 pediatric patients aged from 4 to 15 years undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia who were randomized to either the air-Q SP group or the PLMA group. The primary outcome parameter in this study was the oropharyngeal leak pressure, and the secondary outcome parameters were ease of insertion, time of insertion, first attempt insertion success rate, number of gastric insufflations, fiberoptic glottic view, and complications related to the supraglottic airway device use. Results There was no significant difference between air-Q SP and PLMA regarding first insertion success rate, ease of insertion, oropharyngeal leak pressure, number of gastric insufflations, number of manipulations required to adjust the airway, and complications. Time to insert the air-Q SP was significantly shorter than that of PLMA (13.2±4.2 vs. 17.5±4.8 s, P=0.03). The fiberoptic view was significantly better with air-Q SP than with PLMA (P=0.018). Conclusion The performance of air-Q SP is comparable to that of PLMA as a primary airway device during general anesthesia in pediatric patients, with a shorter insertion time and better fiberoptic view for air-Q SP.
自加压空气- q气管插管与LMA-ProSeal在小儿全身麻醉下的性能比较:一项随机对照试验
自加压空气- q气管插管喉道(air-Q SP)是一种声门上气道装置,具有非充气袖带,不需要连续监测袖带压力。由于ProSeal喉罩气道(PLMA)被认为是“最先进的”声门上设备,我们进行了这项随机试验,以评估air-Q SP与PLMA在儿科患者中的安全性和有效性。患者和方法本研究纳入70例4 ~ 15岁的全麻择期手术患儿,随机分为air-Q SP组和PLMA组。本研究的主要结局参数为口咽漏压,次要结局参数为插入难易程度、插入时间、首次插入成功率、胃内注气次数、纤维声门观以及与声门上气道装置使用相关的并发症。结果air-Q SP与PLMA在首次插入成功率、插入难易程度、口咽漏压、胃内注气次数、调整气道所需操作次数、并发症等方面均无显著差异。air-Q SP插入时间明显短于PLMA(13.2±4.2 vs. 17.5±4.8 s, P=0.03)。air-Q SP的光纤成像效果明显优于PLMA (P=0.018)。结论air-Q SP作为儿科患者全麻一级气道装置的性能可与PLMA相媲美,但air-Q SP的插入时间更短,纤维视野更好。
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