{"title":"LMA Blockbuster® 临床性能比较分析:在儿科全身麻醉中盲法与米勒喉镜引导插入法的比较 - 一项双盲随机对照试验。","authors":"Pooja Bihani, Shivanand, Rishabh Jaju, Naveen Paliwal, Sarita Janweja, Ankit Vyas","doi":"10.4103/ija.ija_186_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>The second-generation supraglottic airway device is conventionally inserted blindly, which might result in suboptimal placement. Limited literature exists on under-vision insertion techniques, particularly in paediatric patients. The primary objective of this study was to compare the oropharyngeal leak pressure (OPLP) between the blind insertion of the LMA Blockbuster<sup>®</sup> and the Miller laryngoscope-guided insertion in children. Secondary outcomes included the number of insertion attempts, haemodynamic disturbances, insertion time and airway complications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This randomised controlled trial study enroled 100 patients aged 1-4 years undergoing elective surgery. Patients were randomised into blind insertion (Group A) or Miller laryngoscope-guided insertion (Group B) of the LMA Blockbuster<sup>®</sup>. The primary outcome measure was OPLP. Insertion time, haemodynamic changes and postoperative complications were also assessed. The Chi-square, Fisher's exact and <i>t</i>-test were applied appropriately, with the significance level set at <i>P</i> < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significantly higher mean OPLP was observed in Group B compared to Group A - 27.9 [standard deviation (SD): 1.58] cmH<sub>2</sub>O versus 25.94 (SD: 0.63) cmH<sub>2</sub>O [mean difference (MD): 1.96 (95% confidence interval {CI}: 1.48, 2.44; <i>P</i> < 0.001)]. Mean insertion time was longer in Group B, that is, 11.9 (SD: 1.91) s versus 8.7 (SD: 0.6) s [MD: 3.2 s; (95% CI: 2.63, 3.76; <i>P</i> < 0.001)]; however, the difference was not clinically relevant. First-attempt insertion, haemodynamic stability and postoperative complications were comparable (<i>P</i> > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Miller laryngoscope-guided under-vision insertion of LMA Blockbuster<sup>®</sup> improves alignment with epiglottic structures compared to blind insertion.</p>","PeriodicalId":13339,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia","volume":"68 10","pages":"875-881"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11498254/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative analysis of LMA Blockbuster<sup>®</sup> clinical performance: Blind versus Miller laryngoscope-guided insertion in paediatric general anaesthesia - A double-blinded, randomised controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Pooja Bihani, Shivanand, Rishabh Jaju, Naveen Paliwal, Sarita Janweja, Ankit Vyas\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/ija.ija_186_24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>The second-generation supraglottic airway device is conventionally inserted blindly, which might result in suboptimal placement. Limited literature exists on under-vision insertion techniques, particularly in paediatric patients. The primary objective of this study was to compare the oropharyngeal leak pressure (OPLP) between the blind insertion of the LMA Blockbuster<sup>®</sup> and the Miller laryngoscope-guided insertion in children. Secondary outcomes included the number of insertion attempts, haemodynamic disturbances, insertion time and airway complications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This randomised controlled trial study enroled 100 patients aged 1-4 years undergoing elective surgery. Patients were randomised into blind insertion (Group A) or Miller laryngoscope-guided insertion (Group B) of the LMA Blockbuster<sup>®</sup>. The primary outcome measure was OPLP. Insertion time, haemodynamic changes and postoperative complications were also assessed. The Chi-square, Fisher's exact and <i>t</i>-test were applied appropriately, with the significance level set at <i>P</i> < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significantly higher mean OPLP was observed in Group B compared to Group A - 27.9 [standard deviation (SD): 1.58] cmH<sub>2</sub>O versus 25.94 (SD: 0.63) cmH<sub>2</sub>O [mean difference (MD): 1.96 (95% confidence interval {CI}: 1.48, 2.44; <i>P</i> < 0.001)]. Mean insertion time was longer in Group B, that is, 11.9 (SD: 1.91) s versus 8.7 (SD: 0.6) s [MD: 3.2 s; (95% CI: 2.63, 3.76; <i>P</i> < 0.001)]; however, the difference was not clinically relevant. First-attempt insertion, haemodynamic stability and postoperative complications were comparable (<i>P</i> > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Miller laryngoscope-guided under-vision insertion of LMA Blockbuster<sup>®</sup> improves alignment with epiglottic structures compared to blind insertion.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13339,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia\",\"volume\":\"68 10\",\"pages\":\"875-881\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11498254/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_186_24\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"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_186_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparative analysis of LMA Blockbuster® clinical performance: Blind versus Miller laryngoscope-guided insertion in paediatric general anaesthesia - A double-blinded, randomised controlled trial.
Background and aims: The second-generation supraglottic airway device is conventionally inserted blindly, which might result in suboptimal placement. Limited literature exists on under-vision insertion techniques, particularly in paediatric patients. The primary objective of this study was to compare the oropharyngeal leak pressure (OPLP) between the blind insertion of the LMA Blockbuster® and the Miller laryngoscope-guided insertion in children. Secondary outcomes included the number of insertion attempts, haemodynamic disturbances, insertion time and airway complications.
Methods: This randomised controlled trial study enroled 100 patients aged 1-4 years undergoing elective surgery. Patients were randomised into blind insertion (Group A) or Miller laryngoscope-guided insertion (Group B) of the LMA Blockbuster®. The primary outcome measure was OPLP. Insertion time, haemodynamic changes and postoperative complications were also assessed. The Chi-square, Fisher's exact and t-test were applied appropriately, with the significance level set at P < 0.05.
Results: Significantly higher mean OPLP was observed in Group B compared to Group A - 27.9 [standard deviation (SD): 1.58] cmH2O versus 25.94 (SD: 0.63) cmH2O [mean difference (MD): 1.96 (95% confidence interval {CI}: 1.48, 2.44; P < 0.001)]. Mean insertion time was longer in Group B, that is, 11.9 (SD: 1.91) s versus 8.7 (SD: 0.6) s [MD: 3.2 s; (95% CI: 2.63, 3.76; P < 0.001)]; however, the difference was not clinically relevant. First-attempt insertion, haemodynamic stability and postoperative complications were comparable (P > 0.05).
Conclusion: Miller laryngoscope-guided under-vision insertion of LMA Blockbuster® improves alignment with epiglottic structures compared to blind insertion.