BlockBuster®喉罩气道与Air-Q®插管喉道作为纤支镜引导下气管插管的管道的比较:一项随机对照研究。

IF 2.9 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Indian Journal of Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-06-12 DOI:10.4103/ija.ija_942_24
Kanika Chauhan, Sukhyanti Kerai, Kirti N Saxena, Lalit Gupta, T H Prathap, Sonia Wadhawan
{"title":"BlockBuster®喉罩气道与Air-Q®插管喉道作为纤支镜引导下气管插管的管道的比较:一项随机对照研究。","authors":"Kanika Chauhan, Sukhyanti Kerai, Kirti N Saxena, Lalit Gupta, T H Prathap, Sonia Wadhawan","doi":"10.4103/ija.ija_942_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>The available supraglottic devices (SGDs) used as conduits for fibreoptic bronchoscope-guided intubation (FOI) in children have shown no difference in terms of time taken for tracheal intubation or success rate on the first attempt. However, several difficulties have been reported during the removal of the SGD after FOI. This study aimed to compare the feasibility of the safe removal of conduits after FOI through BlockBuster<sup>®</sup> Laryngeal Mask Airway (BlockBuster) and Air-Q<sup>®</sup> Intubating Laryngeal Airway (Air-Q) in paediatric patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a randomised comparative study conducted on 66 children between the ages of 1 and 8 years undergoing elective surgeries under general anaesthesia. FOI was performed using BlockBuster or Air-Q as a conduit in study groups. The primary outcome was the time taken and the ease of removing the conduit after FOI. The secondary outcomes included adverse events during conduit removal. We also compared the number of attempts and time taken for the successful placement of these SGDs, as well as for FOI utilising them as conduits. An independent samples <i>t</i>-test was used for normally distributed variables, and a Chi-square test for qualitative variables, with statistical significance set at <i>P</i> < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ease of removing the conduit was comparable in both groups (<i>P</i> = 0.21). The mean time taken to remove the conduit was lower in the Blockbuster group [28.03 [standard deviation (SD: 5.90] [95% confidence interval (CI): 26.01, 30.04] seconds] compared to the control group (30.27 (SD: 5.54) (95% CI: 28.38, 32.16) seconds; <i>P</i> = 0.03). There were no adverse events during conduit removal in the BlockBuster and the Air-Q group. The number of attempts (<i>P</i> = 0.317) and time taken for the successful placement of SGDs (<i>P</i> = 0.054) in the study groups and FOI through them was found to be comparable (<i>P</i> = 0.692).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For FOB-guided tracheal intubation in paediatric patients, BlockBuster is comparable to Air-Q, and it may be a useful alternative.</p>","PeriodicalId":13339,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia","volume":"69 7","pages":"687-692"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12244462/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of BlockBuster<sup>®</sup> Laryngeal Mask Airway and Air-Q<sup>®</sup> Intubating Laryngeal Airway as a conduit for fibreoptic bronchoscopy-guided tracheal intubation in paediatric patients: A randomised comparative study.\",\"authors\":\"Kanika Chauhan, Sukhyanti Kerai, Kirti N Saxena, Lalit Gupta, T H Prathap, Sonia Wadhawan\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/ija.ija_942_24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>The available supraglottic devices (SGDs) used as conduits for fibreoptic bronchoscope-guided intubation (FOI) in children have shown no difference in terms of time taken for tracheal intubation or success rate on the first attempt. However, several difficulties have been reported during the removal of the SGD after FOI. This study aimed to compare the feasibility of the safe removal of conduits after FOI through BlockBuster<sup>®</sup> Laryngeal Mask Airway (BlockBuster) and Air-Q<sup>®</sup> Intubating Laryngeal Airway (Air-Q) in paediatric patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a randomised comparative study conducted on 66 children between the ages of 1 and 8 years undergoing elective surgeries under general anaesthesia. FOI was performed using BlockBuster or Air-Q as a conduit in study groups. The primary outcome was the time taken and the ease of removing the conduit after FOI. The secondary outcomes included adverse events during conduit removal. We also compared the number of attempts and time taken for the successful placement of these SGDs, as well as for FOI utilising them as conduits. An independent samples <i>t</i>-test was used for normally distributed variables, and a Chi-square test for qualitative variables, with statistical significance set at <i>P</i> < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ease of removing the conduit was comparable in both groups (<i>P</i> = 0.21). The mean time taken to remove the conduit was lower in the Blockbuster group [28.03 [standard deviation (SD: 5.90] [95% confidence interval (CI): 26.01, 30.04] seconds] compared to the control group (30.27 (SD: 5.54) (95% CI: 28.38, 32.16) seconds; <i>P</i> = 0.03). There were no adverse events during conduit removal in the BlockBuster and the Air-Q group. The number of attempts (<i>P</i> = 0.317) and time taken for the successful placement of SGDs (<i>P</i> = 0.054) in the study groups and FOI through them was found to be comparable (<i>P</i> = 0.692).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For FOB-guided tracheal intubation in paediatric patients, BlockBuster is comparable to Air-Q, and it may be a useful alternative.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13339,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia\",\"volume\":\"69 7\",\"pages\":\"687-692\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12244462/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_942_24\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/6/12 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_942_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:可用的声门上装置(SGDs)作为儿童纤维支气管镜引导插管(FOI)的导管,在气管插管所需时间或第一次尝试的成功率方面没有差异。然而,据报道,在信息自由之后,SGD的移除过程中出现了一些困难。本研究旨在比较BlockBuster®喉罩气道(BlockBuster)和Air-Q®气管插管(Air-Q)在小儿FOI术后安全取出导管的可行性。方法:这是一项随机对照研究,对66名1至8岁的儿童在全身麻醉下进行选择性手术。在研究组中使用BlockBuster或Air-Q作为导管进行FOI。主要结果是手术后切除导管所花费的时间和容易程度。次要结果包括导管切除期间的不良事件。我们还比较了成功放置这些sgd的尝试次数和时间,以及利用它们作为渠道的信息自由。正态分布变量采用独立样本t检验,定性变量采用卡方检验,P < 0.05为统计学显著性。结果:两组患者导管拔除难易程度相当(P = 0.21)。Blockbuster组切除导管的平均时间[28.03[标准差(SD: 5.90][95%可信区间(CI): 26.01, 30.04]秒]低于对照组(30.27 (SD: 5.54) (95% CI: 28.38, 32.16)秒;P = 0.03)。BlockBuster组和Air-Q组在导管拔除过程中无不良事件发生。在研究组和FOI中,成功放置sgd的尝试次数(P = 0.317)和时间(P = 0.054)被发现是可比较的(P = 0.692)。结论:对于fob引导下的儿童气管插管,BlockBuster与Air-Q的效果相当,可能是一种有用的替代方案。
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 BlockBuster® Laryngeal Mask Airway and Air-Q® Intubating Laryngeal Airway as a conduit for fibreoptic bronchoscopy-guided tracheal intubation in paediatric patients: A randomised comparative study.

Background and aims: The available supraglottic devices (SGDs) used as conduits for fibreoptic bronchoscope-guided intubation (FOI) in children have shown no difference in terms of time taken for tracheal intubation or success rate on the first attempt. However, several difficulties have been reported during the removal of the SGD after FOI. This study aimed to compare the feasibility of the safe removal of conduits after FOI through BlockBuster® Laryngeal Mask Airway (BlockBuster) and Air-Q® Intubating Laryngeal Airway (Air-Q) in paediatric patients.

Methods: This was a randomised comparative study conducted on 66 children between the ages of 1 and 8 years undergoing elective surgeries under general anaesthesia. FOI was performed using BlockBuster or Air-Q as a conduit in study groups. The primary outcome was the time taken and the ease of removing the conduit after FOI. The secondary outcomes included adverse events during conduit removal. We also compared the number of attempts and time taken for the successful placement of these SGDs, as well as for FOI utilising them as conduits. An independent samples t-test was used for normally distributed variables, and a Chi-square test for qualitative variables, with statistical significance set at P < 0.05.

Results: The ease of removing the conduit was comparable in both groups (P = 0.21). The mean time taken to remove the conduit was lower in the Blockbuster group [28.03 [standard deviation (SD: 5.90] [95% confidence interval (CI): 26.01, 30.04] seconds] compared to the control group (30.27 (SD: 5.54) (95% CI: 28.38, 32.16) seconds; P = 0.03). There were no adverse events during conduit removal in the BlockBuster and the Air-Q group. The number of attempts (P = 0.317) and time taken for the successful placement of SGDs (P = 0.054) in the study groups and FOI through them was found to be comparable (P = 0.692).

Conclusion: For FOB-guided tracheal intubation in paediatric patients, BlockBuster is comparable to Air-Q, and it may be a useful alternative.

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:604180095
Book学术官方微信