喉罩通气道保护器与喉罩通气道 ProSeal 喉咙痛发生率的比较:随机临床试验

IF 2.9 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Vidya Mohan, P. Rudingwa, S. Panneerselvam, A. Kuberan, G. Srinivasan, Santhosh Arulprakasam
{"title":"喉罩通气道保护器与喉罩通气道 ProSeal 喉咙痛发生率的比较:随机临床试验","authors":"Vidya Mohan, P. Rudingwa, S. Panneerselvam, A. Kuberan, G. Srinivasan, Santhosh Arulprakasam","doi":"10.4103/ija.ija_1068_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Postoperative sore throat (POST) can be as high as 42% in supraglottic devices. LMA® Protector™ is a novel second-generation laryngeal mask airway (LMA) with Cuff Pilot™ technology that allows continuous cuff pressure monitoring. Elevated cuff pressure is a risk factor for POST in supraglottic devices, so we conducted this study to determine whether continuous cuff pressure monitoring can alleviate POST.\n \n \n \n This randomised double-blinded clinical trial compared the incidence of sore throat between LMA® Protector™ and LMA® ProSeal™ and was conducted in 118 patients scheduled for elective short surgical procedures. They were randomised to either LMA® Protector™ (Group PT) or LMA® ProSeal™ (Group P). The airway was secured with either of the two devices. The primary outcome was the incidence of sore throat at 1, 6, and 24 hours postoperatively and compared using the Chi-square test along with other parameters like first attempt success rate and blood staining of the device. The time taken for insertion and oropharyngeal seal pressure were compared using an independent t-test.\n \n \n \n The incidence of POST was low with Group PT (12%) compared to Group P (28.8%) (P = 0.005). The mean oropharyngeal seal pressure was significantly higher in Group PT than in Group P [33.72 (3.07) versus 27.72 (3.88) cm of H2O], P < 0.005. The first attempt success rate was 81.2% and 100% in LMA® Protector™ versus LMA® ProSeal™.\n \n \n \n LMA® Protector™ had a reduced incidence of POST compared to LMA ProSeal. However, a longer insertion time and difficult placement may be a concern.\n","PeriodicalId":13339,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of incidence of sore throat with laryngeal mask airway Protector and laryngeal mask airway ProSeal: A randomised clinical trial\",\"authors\":\"Vidya Mohan, P. Rudingwa, S. Panneerselvam, A. Kuberan, G. Srinivasan, Santhosh Arulprakasam\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/ija.ija_1068_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n Postoperative sore throat (POST) can be as high as 42% in supraglottic devices. LMA® Protector™ is a novel second-generation laryngeal mask airway (LMA) with Cuff Pilot™ technology that allows continuous cuff pressure monitoring. Elevated cuff pressure is a risk factor for POST in supraglottic devices, so we conducted this study to determine whether continuous cuff pressure monitoring can alleviate POST.\\n \\n \\n \\n This randomised double-blinded clinical trial compared the incidence of sore throat between LMA® Protector™ and LMA® ProSeal™ and was conducted in 118 patients scheduled for elective short surgical procedures. They were randomised to either LMA® Protector™ (Group PT) or LMA® ProSeal™ (Group P). The airway was secured with either of the two devices. The primary outcome was the incidence of sore throat at 1, 6, and 24 hours postoperatively and compared using the Chi-square test along with other parameters like first attempt success rate and blood staining of the device. The time taken for insertion and oropharyngeal seal pressure were compared using an independent t-test.\\n \\n \\n \\n The incidence of POST was low with Group PT (12%) compared to Group P (28.8%) (P = 0.005). The mean oropharyngeal seal pressure was significantly higher in Group PT than in Group P [33.72 (3.07) versus 27.72 (3.88) cm of H2O], P < 0.005. The first attempt success rate was 81.2% and 100% in LMA® Protector™ versus LMA® ProSeal™.\\n \\n \\n \\n LMA® Protector™ had a reduced incidence of POST compared to LMA ProSeal. However, a longer insertion time and difficult placement may be a concern.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":13339,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_1068_23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_1068_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

声门上装置的术后咽喉痛 (POST) 发生率可高达 42%。LMA® Protector™ 是一种新型第二代喉罩通气道 (LMA),采用 Cuff Pilot™ 技术,可对充气罩囊压力进行连续监测。充气罩囊压力升高是声门上装置发生 POST 的一个风险因素,因此我们进行了这项研究,以确定持续充气罩囊压力监测是否能减轻 POST。 这项随机双盲临床试验比较了 LMA® Protector™ 和 LMA® ProSeal™ 的咽喉痛发生率,并在 118 名计划接受择期短小手术的患者中进行。他们被随机分配到 LMA® Protector™(PT 组)或 LMA® ProSeal™(P 组)。使用这两种装置中的任何一种固定气道。主要结果是术后 1、6 和 24 小时的咽喉痛发生率,并使用卡方检验与首次尝试成功率和装置血迹等其他参数进行比较。插入时间和口咽密封压力采用独立的 t 检验进行比较。 与 P 组(28.8%)相比,PT 组(12%)的 POST 发生率较低(P = 0.005)。PT 组的平均口咽密封压力明显高于 P 组 [33.72 (3.07) 对 27.72 (3.88) cm H2O],P < 0.005。LMA® Protector™ 与 LMA® ProSeal™ 的首次尝试成功率分别为 81.2% 和 100%。 与 LMA ProSeal™ 相比,LMA® Protector™ 的 POST 发生率更低。不过,插入时间较长和置放困难可能是一个问题。
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 incidence of sore throat with laryngeal mask airway Protector and laryngeal mask airway ProSeal: A randomised clinical trial
Postoperative sore throat (POST) can be as high as 42% in supraglottic devices. LMA® Protector™ is a novel second-generation laryngeal mask airway (LMA) with Cuff Pilot™ technology that allows continuous cuff pressure monitoring. Elevated cuff pressure is a risk factor for POST in supraglottic devices, so we conducted this study to determine whether continuous cuff pressure monitoring can alleviate POST. This randomised double-blinded clinical trial compared the incidence of sore throat between LMA® Protector™ and LMA® ProSeal™ and was conducted in 118 patients scheduled for elective short surgical procedures. They were randomised to either LMA® Protector™ (Group PT) or LMA® ProSeal™ (Group P). The airway was secured with either of the two devices. The primary outcome was the incidence of sore throat at 1, 6, and 24 hours postoperatively and compared using the Chi-square test along with other parameters like first attempt success rate and blood staining of the device. The time taken for insertion and oropharyngeal seal pressure were compared using an independent t-test. The incidence of POST was low with Group PT (12%) compared to Group P (28.8%) (P = 0.005). The mean oropharyngeal seal pressure was significantly higher in Group PT than in Group P [33.72 (3.07) versus 27.72 (3.88) cm of H2O], P < 0.005. The first attempt success rate was 81.2% and 100% in LMA® Protector™ versus LMA® ProSeal™. LMA® Protector™ had a reduced incidence of POST compared to LMA ProSeal. However, a longer insertion time and difficult placement may be a concern.
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
4.20
自引率
44.80%
发文量
210
审稿时长
36 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