通过 LMA Blockbuster® 和 I-Gel® LMA 比较盲插成功率的随机对照试验。

IF 1.6 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Nazia Nazir, Anupriya Saxena
{"title":"通过 LMA Blockbuster® 和 I-Gel® LMA 比较盲插成功率的随机对照试验。","authors":"Nazia Nazir, Anupriya Saxena","doi":"10.5114/ait.2024.138562","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Laryngeal mask airway-blockbuster (LMA-BT) is a relatively new supraglottic airway device (SGAD). In this study, we compared LMA-BT with I-Gel LMA for efficacy of blind tracheal intubation.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We conducted a single-blind prospective study after ethical approval. One hundred American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) Grade I-III (age 18-60 years) patients scheduled for elective surgery under general anaesthesia with endotracheal intubation were included and randomly divided into 2 groups. Blind tracheal intubation was performed through LMA-BT ( n = 50) and I-Gel ( n = 50) in groups 1 and 2, respectively. The primary aim was to evaluate the first pass success rate of blind tracheal intubation through the LMAs. The secondary objectives noted were attempts and ease of LMA insertion, total time taken for LMA insertion, airway seal pressure of LMA, ease of NGT insertion through LMA, fibre-optic grading of laryngeal view through LMA, overall success rate and time of intubation through LMA, time for LMA removal, and complications, if any.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the LMA-BT group, the first pass success rate ( P < 0.019) and the overall success rate of intubation ( P < 0.005) were significantly higher than in the I-Gel group. Using LMA-BT also resulted in statistically significant shorter intubation time ( P < 0.0001) with higher airway seal pressure as compared to I-Gel ( P < 0.001). The difference in the first attempt insertion, number of insertion attempts, ease and time of LMA insertion and removal after intubation, and postoperative complications were comparable among the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>LMA-BT is a superior device as compared to I-Gel LMA as a conduit for blind tracheal intubation.</p>","PeriodicalId":7750,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesiology intensive therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11022640/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A randomised controlled trial to compare blind intubation success through LMA Blockbuster® and I-Gel® LMA.\",\"authors\":\"Nazia Nazir, Anupriya Saxena\",\"doi\":\"10.5114/ait.2024.138562\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Laryngeal mask airway-blockbuster (LMA-BT) is a relatively new supraglottic airway device (SGAD). In this study, we compared LMA-BT with I-Gel LMA for efficacy of blind tracheal intubation.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We conducted a single-blind prospective study after ethical approval. One hundred American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) Grade I-III (age 18-60 years) patients scheduled for elective surgery under general anaesthesia with endotracheal intubation were included and randomly divided into 2 groups. Blind tracheal intubation was performed through LMA-BT ( n = 50) and I-Gel ( n = 50) in groups 1 and 2, respectively. The primary aim was to evaluate the first pass success rate of blind tracheal intubation through the LMAs. The secondary objectives noted were attempts and ease of LMA insertion, total time taken for LMA insertion, airway seal pressure of LMA, ease of NGT insertion through LMA, fibre-optic grading of laryngeal view through LMA, overall success rate and time of intubation through LMA, time for LMA removal, and complications, if any.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the LMA-BT group, the first pass success rate ( P < 0.019) and the overall success rate of intubation ( P < 0.005) were significantly higher than in the I-Gel group. Using LMA-BT also resulted in statistically significant shorter intubation time ( P < 0.0001) with higher airway seal pressure as compared to I-Gel ( P < 0.001). The difference in the first attempt insertion, number of insertion attempts, ease and time of LMA insertion and removal after intubation, and postoperative complications were comparable among the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>LMA-BT is a superior device as compared to I-Gel LMA as a conduit for blind tracheal intubation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7750,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anaesthesiology intensive therapy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11022640/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anaesthesiology intensive therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5114/ait.2024.138562\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesiology intensive therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/ait.2024.138562","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:喉罩气道阻断器(LMA-BT)是一种相对较新的声门上气道装置(SGAD)。在这项研究中,我们比较了 LMA-BT 与 I-Gel LMA 在气管盲插管方面的疗效:在获得伦理批准后,我们进行了一项单盲前瞻性研究。100 名美国麻醉学会(ASA)I-III 级(18-60 岁)患者计划在全身麻醉下进行气管插管的择期手术,并随机分为两组。第一组和第二组分别通过 LMA-BT (50 人)和 I-Gel(50 人)进行盲气管插管。主要目的是评估通过 LMA 进行盲气管插管的首次成功率。次要目标包括插入 LMA 的尝试次数和难易程度、插入 LMA 所需的总时间、LMA 的气道密封压力、通过 LMA 插入 NGT 的难易程度、通过 LMA 进行喉部视图的光纤分级、通过 LMA 插管的总体成功率和时间、移除 LMA 所需的时间以及并发症(如有):LMA-BT 组的首次通过成功率(P < 0.019)和插管总体成功率(P < 0.005)明显高于 I-Gel 组。与 I-Gel 相比(P < 0.001),使用 LMA-BT 还能显著缩短插管时间(P < 0.0001),提高气道密封压力(P < 0.001)。各组在首次插入尝试、插入尝试次数、插管后插入和拔出 LMA 的难易程度和时间以及术后并发症方面的差异不相上下:结论:作为气管盲插管的导管,LMA-BT 是一种优于 I-Gel LMA 的装置。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A randomised controlled trial to compare blind intubation success through LMA Blockbuster® and I-Gel® LMA.

Introduction: Laryngeal mask airway-blockbuster (LMA-BT) is a relatively new supraglottic airway device (SGAD). In this study, we compared LMA-BT with I-Gel LMA for efficacy of blind tracheal intubation.

Material and methods: We conducted a single-blind prospective study after ethical approval. One hundred American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) Grade I-III (age 18-60 years) patients scheduled for elective surgery under general anaesthesia with endotracheal intubation were included and randomly divided into 2 groups. Blind tracheal intubation was performed through LMA-BT ( n = 50) and I-Gel ( n = 50) in groups 1 and 2, respectively. The primary aim was to evaluate the first pass success rate of blind tracheal intubation through the LMAs. The secondary objectives noted were attempts and ease of LMA insertion, total time taken for LMA insertion, airway seal pressure of LMA, ease of NGT insertion through LMA, fibre-optic grading of laryngeal view through LMA, overall success rate and time of intubation through LMA, time for LMA removal, and complications, if any.

Results: In the LMA-BT group, the first pass success rate ( P < 0.019) and the overall success rate of intubation ( P < 0.005) were significantly higher than in the I-Gel group. Using LMA-BT also resulted in statistically significant shorter intubation time ( P < 0.0001) with higher airway seal pressure as compared to I-Gel ( P < 0.001). The difference in the first attempt insertion, number of insertion attempts, ease and time of LMA insertion and removal after intubation, and postoperative complications were comparable among the groups.

Conclusions: LMA-BT is a superior device as compared to I-Gel LMA as a conduit for blind tracheal intubation.

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
3.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
48
审稿时长
25 weeks
×
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