I-gel® 和 BlockBuster™ 喉罩气道在成人患者全身麻醉期间的临床表现:随机比较。

Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-24 DOI:10.4103/ijabmr.ijabmr_520_23
Prerna Prabhat Das, Tanmay Tiwari, Rajesh Raman, Shefali Gautam, B B Kushwaha, Yatendra Kumar
{"title":"I-gel® 和 BlockBuster™ 喉罩气道在成人患者全身麻醉期间的临床表现:随机比较。","authors":"Prerna Prabhat Das, Tanmay Tiwari, Rajesh Raman, Shefali Gautam, B B Kushwaha, Yatendra Kumar","doi":"10.4103/ijabmr.ijabmr_520_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Supraglottic devices have revolutionized the current practice of airway management. We compared the clinical performance of a recently introduced BlockBuster™ Laryngeal mask airway with i-gel<sup>®</sup> in adult patients under general anesthesia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following Institutional ethical clearance, the present study was conducted on 62 patients belonging to American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1 and 2 of either sex in the age group of 20-60 years under general anesthesia. Patients were randomly assigned to i-gel<sup>®</sup> (I) and BlockBuster™ (B) groups (31 per group). Time for successful insertion, insertion success rate, ease of insertion, oropharyngeal leak pressures (OLPs), and complications were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean insertion time of device was less in Group I (13.52 ± 2.58 s) than that of Group B (14.10 ± 2.04 s), which was neither clinically nor statistically significant (<i>P</i> = 0.330). OLP in Group B (24.52 ± 2.77 cm of H2O) was found to be significantly higher compared to Group I (20.81 ± 2.56 cm of H2O) with <i>P</i> < 0.001. Overall insertion and first attempt success was similar (i-gel<sup>®</sup> 31/31 [100%] and 29/31 [93.5%] and BlockBuster™ 31/31 [100%] and 29/31 [93.5%], respectively). Ease of insertion (<i>P</i> = 0.684) and complications (<i>P</i> = 0.782) of both the devices were comparable.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both the devices are useful and effective for airway management in adult under general anesthesia. Having a high OLP and comparable insertion time, risk of aspiration may be further reduced with the use of BlockBuster™ in comparison to i-gel<sup>®</sup>.</p>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11189260/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Performance of I-gel<sup>®</sup> and BlockBuster™ Laryngeal Mask Airway in Adult Patients during General Anesthesia: A Randomized Comparison.\",\"authors\":\"Prerna Prabhat Das, Tanmay Tiwari, Rajesh Raman, Shefali Gautam, B B Kushwaha, Yatendra Kumar\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/ijabmr.ijabmr_520_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Supraglottic devices have revolutionized the current practice of airway management. We compared the clinical performance of a recently introduced BlockBuster™ Laryngeal mask airway with i-gel<sup>®</sup> in adult patients under general anesthesia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following Institutional ethical clearance, the present study was conducted on 62 patients belonging to American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1 and 2 of either sex in the age group of 20-60 years under general anesthesia. Patients were randomly assigned to i-gel<sup>®</sup> (I) and BlockBuster™ (B) groups (31 per group). Time for successful insertion, insertion success rate, ease of insertion, oropharyngeal leak pressures (OLPs), and complications were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean insertion time of device was less in Group I (13.52 ± 2.58 s) than that of Group B (14.10 ± 2.04 s), which was neither clinically nor statistically significant (<i>P</i> = 0.330). OLP in Group B (24.52 ± 2.77 cm of H2O) was found to be significantly higher compared to Group I (20.81 ± 2.56 cm of H2O) with <i>P</i> < 0.001. Overall insertion and first attempt success was similar (i-gel<sup>®</sup> 31/31 [100%] and 29/31 [93.5%] and BlockBuster™ 31/31 [100%] and 29/31 [93.5%], respectively). Ease of insertion (<i>P</i> = 0.684) and complications (<i>P</i> = 0.782) of both the devices were comparable.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both the devices are useful and effective for airway management in adult under general anesthesia. Having a high OLP and comparable insertion time, risk of aspiration may be further reduced with the use of BlockBuster™ in comparison to i-gel<sup>®</sup>.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11189260/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijabmr.ijabmr_520_23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijabmr.ijabmr_520_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:声门上装置彻底改变了当前的气道管理实践。我们比较了最近推出的 BlockBuster™ 喉罩气道与 i-gel® 在全身麻醉的成年患者中的临床表现:本研究在获得机构伦理许可后,对 62 名属于美国麻醉医师协会身体状况 1 级和 2 级的患者进行了全身麻醉,患者年龄在 20-60 岁之间,性别不限。患者被随机分配到 i-gel® 组(I)和 BlockBuster™ 组(B)(每组 31 人)。对成功插入时间、插入成功率、插入难易程度、口咽漏压(OLPs)和并发症进行了评估:结果:I 组的装置平均插入时间(13.52 ± 2.58 秒)少于 B 组(14.10 ± 2.04 秒),这在临床上和统计学上都没有意义(P = 0.330)。B 组的 OLP(24.52 ± 2.77 cm H2O)明显高于 I 组(20.81 ± 2.56 cm H2O),P < 0.001。总体插入和首次尝试成功率相似(i-gel® 31/31 [100%] 和 29/31 [93.5%],BlockBuster™ 31/31 [100%] 和 29/31 [93.5%])。两种装置的插入难易度(P = 0.684)和并发症(P = 0.782)相当:结论:这两种装置对全身麻醉下的成人气道管理都非常有用和有效。与 i-gel® 相比,BlockBuster™ 具有较高的 OLP 值,插入时间相当,可进一步降低吸入风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享
查看原文
Clinical Performance of I-gel® and BlockBuster™ Laryngeal Mask Airway in Adult Patients during General Anesthesia: A Randomized Comparison.

Background: Supraglottic devices have revolutionized the current practice of airway management. We compared the clinical performance of a recently introduced BlockBuster™ Laryngeal mask airway with i-gel® in adult patients under general anesthesia.

Methods: Following Institutional ethical clearance, the present study was conducted on 62 patients belonging to American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1 and 2 of either sex in the age group of 20-60 years under general anesthesia. Patients were randomly assigned to i-gel® (I) and BlockBuster™ (B) groups (31 per group). Time for successful insertion, insertion success rate, ease of insertion, oropharyngeal leak pressures (OLPs), and complications were assessed.

Results: Mean insertion time of device was less in Group I (13.52 ± 2.58 s) than that of Group B (14.10 ± 2.04 s), which was neither clinically nor statistically significant (P = 0.330). OLP in Group B (24.52 ± 2.77 cm of H2O) was found to be significantly higher compared to Group I (20.81 ± 2.56 cm of H2O) with P < 0.001. Overall insertion and first attempt success was similar (i-gel® 31/31 [100%] and 29/31 [93.5%] and BlockBuster™ 31/31 [100%] and 29/31 [93.5%], respectively). Ease of insertion (P = 0.684) and complications (P = 0.782) of both the devices were comparable.

Conclusions: Both the devices are useful and effective for airway management in adult under general anesthesia. Having a high OLP and comparable insertion time, risk of aspiration may be further reduced with the use of BlockBuster™ in comparison to i-gel®.

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
×
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