一项前瞻性随机研究:LMA Blockbuster和LMA Protector在盲口气管插管中的比较。

IF 1.1 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Kiranpreet Kaur, Tavleen Kaur, Prashant Kumar, Mamta Bhardwaj, Svareen Kaur, Suresh K Singhal, Sakshi Talwar, Paramjeet Sandhu
{"title":"一项前瞻性随机研究:LMA Blockbuster和LMA Protector在盲口气管插管中的比较。","authors":"Kiranpreet Kaur, Tavleen Kaur, Prashant Kumar, Mamta Bhardwaj, Svareen Kaur, Suresh K Singhal, Sakshi Talwar, Paramjeet Sandhu","doi":"10.4103/joacp.joacp_60_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>The present study was planned to compare two devices, namely LMA Blockbuster and LMA Protector, as a conduit for endotracheal intubation. The study aimed to compare the first-pass success rate of blind intubation, time taken for successful intubation, and ease of intubation through both devices.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>This prospective randomized study was conducted on 100 patients of either sex aged 18-60 years, belonging to ASA physical status I-II, with 50 patients in each group (group B - LMA Blockbuster, and group P - LMA Protector). All the patients received general anesthesia. The primary objective was to compare the success rate, ease of blind tracheal intubation, time taken for intubation, and number of attempts. Secondary objectives included assessing the success of supraglottic device (SAD) placement, oropharyngeal seal pressure, and hemodynamic changes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The insertion time of the SAD was 8.18 ± 3.66 and 10.94 ± 6.66 s for groups B and P, respectively. The SAD was placed on the first attempt in 96.0% of patients in group B and 88% of patients in group P. The total time taken for successful intubation was comparable between the groups (<i>P</i> = 0.239). The ETT was placed in the first attempt in 88% and 78% patients in group B and group P, respectively (<i>P</i> = 0.8).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We conclude that LMA Blockbuster and LMA Protector are both comparable and good intubating devices in terms of ease and success rate of intubation. However, LMA Blockbuster outperforms LMA Protector in terms of ease of insertion of SADs.</p>","PeriodicalId":14946,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology","volume":"41 2","pages":"292-297"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12002702/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of blind oro-tracheal intubation through LMA Blockbuster and LMA Protector - A prospective randomized study.\",\"authors\":\"Kiranpreet Kaur, Tavleen Kaur, Prashant Kumar, Mamta Bhardwaj, Svareen Kaur, Suresh K Singhal, Sakshi Talwar, Paramjeet Sandhu\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/joacp.joacp_60_24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>The present study was planned to compare two devices, namely LMA Blockbuster and LMA Protector, as a conduit for endotracheal intubation. The study aimed to compare the first-pass success rate of blind intubation, time taken for successful intubation, and ease of intubation through both devices.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>This prospective randomized study was conducted on 100 patients of either sex aged 18-60 years, belonging to ASA physical status I-II, with 50 patients in each group (group B - LMA Blockbuster, and group P - LMA Protector). All the patients received general anesthesia. The primary objective was to compare the success rate, ease of blind tracheal intubation, time taken for intubation, and number of attempts. Secondary objectives included assessing the success of supraglottic device (SAD) placement, oropharyngeal seal pressure, and hemodynamic changes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The insertion time of the SAD was 8.18 ± 3.66 and 10.94 ± 6.66 s for groups B and P, respectively. The SAD was placed on the first attempt in 96.0% of patients in group B and 88% of patients in group P. The total time taken for successful intubation was comparable between the groups (<i>P</i> = 0.239). The ETT was placed in the first attempt in 88% and 78% patients in group B and group P, respectively (<i>P</i> = 0.8).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We conclude that LMA Blockbuster and LMA Protector are both comparable and good intubating devices in terms of ease and success rate of intubation. However, LMA Blockbuster outperforms LMA Protector in terms of ease of insertion of SADs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14946,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology\",\"volume\":\"41 2\",\"pages\":\"292-297\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12002702/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_60_24\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/16 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_60_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景与目的:本研究拟比较LMA Blockbuster和LMA Protector两种设备作为气管插管导管的效果。本研究旨在比较盲插管的一次通过成功率、插管成功所需的时间以及通过两种设备插管的便利性。材料与方法:本前瞻性随机研究纳入100例年龄在18-60岁,ASA身体状态为I-II级的男女患者,每组50例(B组- LMA Blockbuster组,P组- LMA Protector组)。所有患者均接受全身麻醉。主要目的是比较成功率、气管插管难易程度、插管时间和插管次数。次要目的包括评估声门上装置(SAD)放置的成功,口咽密封压力和血流动力学变化。结果:B组和P组植针时间分别为8.18±3.66 s和10.94±6.66 s。B组96.0%的患者和P组88%的患者在第一次尝试时放置了SAD。两组间成功插管的总时间具有可比性(P = 0.239)。B组和P组分别有88%和78%的患者首次尝试ETT (P = 0.8)。结论:LMA Blockbuster和LMA Protector在插管便捷性和成功率方面都是相当好的插管设备。然而,LMA Blockbuster在插入SADs的便利性方面优于LMA Protector。
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 blind oro-tracheal intubation through LMA Blockbuster and LMA Protector - A prospective randomized study.

Comparison of blind oro-tracheal intubation through LMA Blockbuster and LMA Protector - A prospective randomized study.

Comparison of blind oro-tracheal intubation through LMA Blockbuster and LMA Protector - A prospective randomized study.

Background and aims: The present study was planned to compare two devices, namely LMA Blockbuster and LMA Protector, as a conduit for endotracheal intubation. The study aimed to compare the first-pass success rate of blind intubation, time taken for successful intubation, and ease of intubation through both devices.

Material and methods: This prospective randomized study was conducted on 100 patients of either sex aged 18-60 years, belonging to ASA physical status I-II, with 50 patients in each group (group B - LMA Blockbuster, and group P - LMA Protector). All the patients received general anesthesia. The primary objective was to compare the success rate, ease of blind tracheal intubation, time taken for intubation, and number of attempts. Secondary objectives included assessing the success of supraglottic device (SAD) placement, oropharyngeal seal pressure, and hemodynamic changes.

Results: The insertion time of the SAD was 8.18 ± 3.66 and 10.94 ± 6.66 s for groups B and P, respectively. The SAD was placed on the first attempt in 96.0% of patients in group B and 88% of patients in group P. The total time taken for successful intubation was comparable between the groups (P = 0.239). The ETT was placed in the first attempt in 88% and 78% patients in group B and group P, respectively (P = 0.8).

Conclusions: We conclude that LMA Blockbuster and LMA Protector are both comparable and good intubating devices in terms of ease and success rate of intubation. However, LMA Blockbuster outperforms LMA Protector in terms of ease of insertion of SADs.

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:604180095
Book学术官方微信