新一代Baska Mask®无内胎LMA与经典LMA在易用性和患者舒适度方面的比较

Ş. M. Aksoy, Hulya Kasıkara, Derya Atasever, L. Öztürk, Abdulkadir But
{"title":"新一代Baska Mask®无内胎LMA与经典LMA在易用性和患者舒适度方面的比较","authors":"Ş. M. Aksoy, Hulya Kasıkara, Derya Atasever, L. Öztürk, Abdulkadir But","doi":"10.5505/ias.2022.58672","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aimed to compare Baska Mask laryngeal mask airway (LMA) with classic LMA in terms of clinical performance, ease of use, and patient comfort. The duration of placement was compared between the groups as the primary outcome. Comparisons were also made for the number of LMA entry attempts, hemodynamic parameters. and postoperative complications. The study included 66 patients. The patients were randomly separated into two groups using the sealed-envelope method. After general anesthesia induction, a new LMA (Baska Mask) or a classic LMA was placed in the mouth of all the patients. The heart rate, blood pressure, mean and peak airway pressure, and amount of ventilation leakage were recorded throughout the surgery. The patients were examined for the presence of blood smears after removing the LMA. One hour after the surgery, an anesthetist blinded to the groups asked all the patients whether they had throat pain. The duration of LMA placement was determined as 14.5 s for classic LMA and 16.0 s for new LMA, with no significant difference between the groups ( P = 0.117). The number of attempts at entry was similar in both groups ( P = 0.741). The mean and peak airway pressure measurements 5 min after LMA placement were statistically significantly different between the groups ( P < 0.05), with higher values in the new LMA group. No blood smears were observed in the patients using new LMA, while blood smears were determined in seven patients in the classic LMA group ( P = 0.012). The results of this study showed that an adequate, safe open airway was provided throughout the surgery in both groups. Despite no significant difference with respect to ease of use, the Baska Mask was thought to be more advantageous than LMA in terms of patient comfort.","PeriodicalId":351803,"journal":{"name":"medical journal of islamic world academy of sciences","volume":"68 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison of The Use of Tubeless Tire Model New Generation Baska Mask ® LMA and Classic LMA in Terms of Ease-of-Use and Patient Comfort\",\"authors\":\"Ş. M. Aksoy, Hulya Kasıkara, Derya Atasever, L. Öztürk, Abdulkadir But\",\"doi\":\"10.5505/ias.2022.58672\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study aimed to compare Baska Mask laryngeal mask airway (LMA) with classic LMA in terms of clinical performance, ease of use, and patient comfort. The duration of placement was compared between the groups as the primary outcome. Comparisons were also made for the number of LMA entry attempts, hemodynamic parameters. and postoperative complications. The study included 66 patients. The patients were randomly separated into two groups using the sealed-envelope method. After general anesthesia induction, a new LMA (Baska Mask) or a classic LMA was placed in the mouth of all the patients. The heart rate, blood pressure, mean and peak airway pressure, and amount of ventilation leakage were recorded throughout the surgery. The patients were examined for the presence of blood smears after removing the LMA. One hour after the surgery, an anesthetist blinded to the groups asked all the patients whether they had throat pain. The duration of LMA placement was determined as 14.5 s for classic LMA and 16.0 s for new LMA, with no significant difference between the groups ( P = 0.117). The number of attempts at entry was similar in both groups ( P = 0.741). The mean and peak airway pressure measurements 5 min after LMA placement were statistically significantly different between the groups ( P < 0.05), with higher values in the new LMA group. No blood smears were observed in the patients using new LMA, while blood smears were determined in seven patients in the classic LMA group ( P = 0.012). The results of this study showed that an adequate, safe open airway was provided throughout the surgery in both groups. Despite no significant difference with respect to ease of use, the Baska Mask was thought to be more advantageous than LMA in terms of patient comfort.\",\"PeriodicalId\":351803,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"medical journal of islamic world academy of sciences\",\"volume\":\"68 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"medical journal of islamic world academy of sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5505/ias.2022.58672\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medical journal of islamic world academy of sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5505/ias.2022.58672","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在比较Baska Mask喉罩气道(LMA)与经典喉罩气道(LMA)在临床表现、易用性和患者舒适度方面的差异。将两组间放置时间作为主要观察指标进行比较。还比较了LMA进入次数、血流动力学参数。以及术后并发症。该研究包括66名患者。采用封膜法将患者随机分为两组。全麻诱导后,所有患者均在口腔内置入新型或经典LMA (Baska Mask)。在整个手术过程中记录心率、血压、平均和峰值气道压力、通气漏气量。在切除LMA后检查患者是否存在血涂片。手术一小时后,一名麻醉师对各组不知情,询问所有患者是否有喉咙痛。经典LMA放置时间为14.5 s,新LMA放置时间为16.0 s,两组间差异无统计学意义(P = 0.117)。两组尝试进入次数相似(P = 0.741)。置置LMA后5 min气道压力平均值和峰值两组间比较差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05),新置LMA组数值更高。新LMA组患者未见血涂片,而经典LMA组有7例患者有血涂片(P = 0.012)。本研究结果表明,两组患者在整个手术过程中均提供了充足、安全的开放气道。尽管在易用性方面没有显著差异,但在患者舒适度方面,Baska面罩被认为比LMA更有利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Comparison of The Use of Tubeless Tire Model New Generation Baska Mask ® LMA and Classic LMA in Terms of Ease-of-Use and Patient Comfort
This study aimed to compare Baska Mask laryngeal mask airway (LMA) with classic LMA in terms of clinical performance, ease of use, and patient comfort. The duration of placement was compared between the groups as the primary outcome. Comparisons were also made for the number of LMA entry attempts, hemodynamic parameters. and postoperative complications. The study included 66 patients. The patients were randomly separated into two groups using the sealed-envelope method. After general anesthesia induction, a new LMA (Baska Mask) or a classic LMA was placed in the mouth of all the patients. The heart rate, blood pressure, mean and peak airway pressure, and amount of ventilation leakage were recorded throughout the surgery. The patients were examined for the presence of blood smears after removing the LMA. One hour after the surgery, an anesthetist blinded to the groups asked all the patients whether they had throat pain. The duration of LMA placement was determined as 14.5 s for classic LMA and 16.0 s for new LMA, with no significant difference between the groups ( P = 0.117). The number of attempts at entry was similar in both groups ( P = 0.741). The mean and peak airway pressure measurements 5 min after LMA placement were statistically significantly different between the groups ( P < 0.05), with higher values in the new LMA group. No blood smears were observed in the patients using new LMA, while blood smears were determined in seven patients in the classic LMA group ( P = 0.012). The results of this study showed that an adequate, safe open airway was provided throughout the surgery in both groups. Despite no significant difference with respect to ease of use, the Baska Mask was thought to be more advantageous than LMA in terms of patient comfort.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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