比较基于体重和耳廓尺寸的方法为接受全身麻醉的儿童选择 ProSeal 喉罩气道尺寸:随机临床研究。

IF 1.5 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Rajesh Mishra, Ranvinder Kaur, Aditi Suri, Rupesh Yadav, Seema Wasnik
{"title":"比较基于体重和耳廓尺寸的方法为接受全身麻醉的儿童选择 ProSeal 喉罩气道尺寸:随机临床研究。","authors":"Rajesh Mishra, Ranvinder Kaur, Aditi Suri, Rupesh Yadav, Seema Wasnik","doi":"10.4103/joacp.joacp_217_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Several methods are in use for LMA ProSeal™ size selection in pediatric patients. Weight-based method is most commonly used. Pinna size-based method is a promising new technique for accurate size selection.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A total of 146 children aged between 6 months and 12 years undergoing surgery under general surgery were included. They were randomized into either pinna-based group (group X) or weight-based group (group Y). Both groups were compared for accurate placement of ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway (PLMA), ease of insertion, number of attempts needed, and peak airway pressures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A Comparable number of patients had a Brimacombe score of 3 and above, indicating correct placement in both groups (<i>P</i> = 0.407). PLMA was easily inserted in 79.5% and 87.7% of patients of groups X and Y, respectively (<i>P</i> = 0.180). Insertion was found to be difficult in 20.5% of patients in group X, whereas it was difficult in only 12.3% of patients of group Y (<i>P</i> = 0.180). The two groups were comparable as per the number of attempts needed for insertion (<i>P</i> = 0.161). Mean peak airway pressures too were comparable between both groups. Ease of insertion too, was statistically insignificant between both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Pinna size-based estimation of LMA size is an effective alternative method to weight-based selection.</p>","PeriodicalId":14946,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11042100/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of weight-based and pinna size method for ProSeal laryngeal mask airway size selection in children receiving general anesthesia: A randomized clinical study.\",\"authors\":\"Rajesh Mishra, Ranvinder Kaur, Aditi Suri, Rupesh Yadav, Seema Wasnik\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/joacp.joacp_217_22\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Several methods are in use for LMA ProSeal™ size selection in pediatric patients. Weight-based method is most commonly used. Pinna size-based method is a promising new technique for accurate size selection.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A total of 146 children aged between 6 months and 12 years undergoing surgery under general surgery were included. They were randomized into either pinna-based group (group X) or weight-based group (group Y). Both groups were compared for accurate placement of ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway (PLMA), ease of insertion, number of attempts needed, and peak airway pressures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A Comparable number of patients had a Brimacombe score of 3 and above, indicating correct placement in both groups (<i>P</i> = 0.407). PLMA was easily inserted in 79.5% and 87.7% of patients of groups X and Y, respectively (<i>P</i> = 0.180). Insertion was found to be difficult in 20.5% of patients in group X, whereas it was difficult in only 12.3% of patients of group Y (<i>P</i> = 0.180). The two groups were comparable as per the number of attempts needed for insertion (<i>P</i> = 0.161). Mean peak airway pressures too were comparable between both groups. Ease of insertion too, was statistically insignificant between both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Pinna size-based estimation of LMA size is an effective alternative method to weight-based selection.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14946,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11042100/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_217_22\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/joacp.joacp_217_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:有几种方法可用于选择儿科患者的 LMA ProSeal™ 大小。最常用的是基于体重的方法。基于耳廓尺寸的方法是一种很有前途的新技术,可用于准确选择尺寸:共纳入 146 名接受普外科手术的 6 个月至 12 岁儿童。他们被随机分为基于耳廓的一组(X 组)或基于体重的一组(Y 组)。两组在 ProSeal™ 喉罩通气道(PLMA)的准确置入、插入难易程度、所需尝试次数和气道峰压方面进行了比较:两组患者的 Brimacombe 评分均在 3 分及以上的人数相当,这表明两组患者均能正确放置喉罩气道(P = 0.407)。X组和Y组分别有79.5%和87.7%的患者能轻松插入PLMA(P = 0.180)。X组有20.5%的患者难以插入,而Y组仅有12.3%的患者难以插入(P = 0.180)。两组患者插入所需的尝试次数相当(P = 0.161)。两组患者的平均气道峰压也相当。两组的插入难易程度也无统计学意义:结论:基于耳廓大小估算 LMA 大小是一种有效的替代方法,可替代基于体重的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of weight-based and pinna size method for ProSeal laryngeal mask airway size selection in children receiving general anesthesia: A randomized clinical study.

Background and aims: Several methods are in use for LMA ProSeal™ size selection in pediatric patients. Weight-based method is most commonly used. Pinna size-based method is a promising new technique for accurate size selection.

Material and methods: A total of 146 children aged between 6 months and 12 years undergoing surgery under general surgery were included. They were randomized into either pinna-based group (group X) or weight-based group (group Y). Both groups were compared for accurate placement of ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway (PLMA), ease of insertion, number of attempts needed, and peak airway pressures.

Results: A Comparable number of patients had a Brimacombe score of 3 and above, indicating correct placement in both groups (P = 0.407). PLMA was easily inserted in 79.5% and 87.7% of patients of groups X and Y, respectively (P = 0.180). Insertion was found to be difficult in 20.5% of patients in group X, whereas it was difficult in only 12.3% of patients of group Y (P = 0.180). The two groups were comparable as per the number of attempts needed for insertion (P = 0.161). Mean peak airway pressures too were comparable between both groups. Ease of insertion too, was statistically insignificant between both groups.

Conclusions: Pinna size-based estimation of LMA size is an effective alternative method to weight-based selection.

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
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