眼压对气道管理的反应:LMA Supreme®和C-MAC®视频喉镜在日托手术中的比较

IF 0.2 Q4 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Haramritpal Kaur, Gurpreet Singh, Jaipreet Singh, Munish Dhawan, Amandeep Singh, Kaur
{"title":"眼压对气道管理的反应:LMA Supreme®和C-MAC®视频喉镜在日托手术中的比较","authors":"Haramritpal Kaur, Gurpreet Singh, Jaipreet Singh, Munish Dhawan, Amandeep Singh, Kaur","doi":"10.35975/apic.v24i6.1400","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Airway maintenance procedures during anesthesia are usually associated with a rise in intraocular pressure (IOP). This is an important issue especially in vulnerable patients. In the present study we compared the rise in IOP with two different group of airway devices i.e. Laryngeal mask airway Supreme (LMA-S) and endotracheal intubation (ETT) using C-MAC® videolaryngoscope (VLS). \nMethodology: The present study was conducted on 100 adult patients of ages >18 yrs, of either sex, belonging to American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) I and II, scheduled to undergo non-ophthalmic elective surgery under general anesthesia. Patients were divided into two equal groups of 50 each, Group A and Group B. In group A (n = 50), lubricated appropriate sized LMA-S was inserted and in Group B (n=50), lubricated appropriate sized ETT was inserted by an anesthesiologist using VLS. IOP was measured in right eye just before insertion of device and subsequently at 1 min, 3 min, 5 min and 10 min after insertion of device. Hemodynamic parameters were recorded along with IOP measurement. \nResults: Both the groups were comparable regarding demographic data (p > 0.05), ASA grade (p = 0.069), and Mallampati grade (MPG) (p = 0.646). Airway establishment time (p = 0.011) was significantly less with C-MAC VLS. IOP were comparable at all measurement times, e.g., 1 min (p = 0.216), 3 min (p = 0.093), 5 min (p = 0.859) and 10 min (p = 0.060) after insertion of each device. Hemodynamic parameters measured were also comparable between two groups (p > 0.05). \nConclusion: Both LMA Supreme and intubation using C-MAC® videolaryngoscope are safe regarding rise in intraocular pressure. Both methods can be safely used for airway management in suitable patients. \nKey words: Airway; Anesthesia; Intraocular pressure; LMA; Endotracheal intubation \nCitation: Kaur H, Singh G, Singh J, Kaur, Dhawan M, Singh A. Intraocular pressure response to airway management: Comparison between LMA Supreme and C-MAC® videolaryngoscope in day care surgery. Anaesth. pain intensive care 2020;24(6):__ \nReceived: 27 January 2020, Revised: 12 May 2020, Reviewed: 25 October 2020, Accepted: 27 October 2020","PeriodicalId":7735,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesia, Pain & Intensive Care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intraocular pressure response to airway management: Comparison between LMA Supreme® and C-MAC® videolaryngoscope in day care surgery\",\"authors\":\"Haramritpal Kaur, Gurpreet Singh, Jaipreet Singh, Munish Dhawan, Amandeep Singh, Kaur\",\"doi\":\"10.35975/apic.v24i6.1400\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Airway maintenance procedures during anesthesia are usually associated with a rise in intraocular pressure (IOP). This is an important issue especially in vulnerable patients. In the present study we compared the rise in IOP with two different group of airway devices i.e. Laryngeal mask airway Supreme (LMA-S) and endotracheal intubation (ETT) using C-MAC® videolaryngoscope (VLS). \\nMethodology: The present study was conducted on 100 adult patients of ages >18 yrs, of either sex, belonging to American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) I and II, scheduled to undergo non-ophthalmic elective surgery under general anesthesia. Patients were divided into two equal groups of 50 each, Group A and Group B. In group A (n = 50), lubricated appropriate sized LMA-S was inserted and in Group B (n=50), lubricated appropriate sized ETT was inserted by an anesthesiologist using VLS. IOP was measured in right eye just before insertion of device and subsequently at 1 min, 3 min, 5 min and 10 min after insertion of device. Hemodynamic parameters were recorded along with IOP measurement. \\nResults: Both the groups were comparable regarding demographic data (p > 0.05), ASA grade (p = 0.069), and Mallampati grade (MPG) (p = 0.646). Airway establishment time (p = 0.011) was significantly less with C-MAC VLS. IOP were comparable at all measurement times, e.g., 1 min (p = 0.216), 3 min (p = 0.093), 5 min (p = 0.859) and 10 min (p = 0.060) after insertion of each device. Hemodynamic parameters measured were also comparable between two groups (p > 0.05). \\nConclusion: Both LMA Supreme and intubation using C-MAC® videolaryngoscope are safe regarding rise in intraocular pressure. Both methods can be safely used for airway management in suitable patients. \\nKey words: Airway; Anesthesia; Intraocular pressure; LMA; Endotracheal intubation \\nCitation: Kaur H, Singh G, Singh J, Kaur, Dhawan M, Singh A. Intraocular pressure response to airway management: Comparison between LMA Supreme and C-MAC® videolaryngoscope in day care surgery. Anaesth. pain intensive care 2020;24(6):__ \\nReceived: 27 January 2020, Revised: 12 May 2020, Reviewed: 25 October 2020, Accepted: 27 October 2020\",\"PeriodicalId\":7735,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anaesthesia, Pain & Intensive Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anaesthesia, Pain & Intensive Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.35975/apic.v24i6.1400\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesia, Pain & Intensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35975/apic.v24i6.1400","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:麻醉期间的气道维持程序通常与眼压升高有关。这是一个重要的问题,尤其是在易受伤害的患者中。在本研究中,我们比较了使用C-MAC®视频喉镜(VLS)的两组不同的气道装置(即喉罩式最高气道罩(LMA-S)和气管插管(ETT))的眼压升高情况。方法:本研究对100名年龄>18岁的成年患者进行,他们属于美国麻醉师协会(ASA)I和II,计划在全麻下接受非眼科选择性手术。患者被分为两组,每组50人,A组和B组。在A组(n=50)中,插入润滑的适当大小的LMA-S,在B组(n=50中)中,麻醉师使用VLS插入润滑的合适大小的ETT。在插入装置之前以及随后在插入装置后1分钟、3分钟、5分钟和10分钟测量右眼的IOP。记录血液动力学参数和眼压测量。结果:两组在人口统计学数据(p>0.05)、ASA分级(p=0.069)和Mallampati分级(MPG)(p=0.646)方面具有可比性。C-MAC VLS的气道建立时间(p=0.011)显著缩短。IOP在所有测量时间都是可比较的,例如,插入每个装置后1分钟(p=0.216)、3分钟(p=0.093)、5分钟(p=0.859)和10分钟(p=0.060)。测量的血液动力学参数在两组之间也具有可比性(p>0.05)。结论:LMA Supreme和使用C-MAC®视频喉镜插管对眼压升高是安全的。这两种方法都可以安全地用于合适患者的气道管理。关键词:Airway;麻醉眼压;LMA;气管插管引文:Kaur H,Singh G,Singh J,Kaur,Dhawan M,Singh A.气道管理的眼压反应:LMA Supreme和C-MAC®视频喉镜在日托手术中的比较。Anaesth。疼痛重症监护2020;24(6):__接收日期:2020年1月27日,修订日期:2020月12日,审核日期:2020年底25日,接受日期:2020年初27日
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Intraocular pressure response to airway management: Comparison between LMA Supreme® and C-MAC® videolaryngoscope in day care surgery
Background: Airway maintenance procedures during anesthesia are usually associated with a rise in intraocular pressure (IOP). This is an important issue especially in vulnerable patients. In the present study we compared the rise in IOP with two different group of airway devices i.e. Laryngeal mask airway Supreme (LMA-S) and endotracheal intubation (ETT) using C-MAC® videolaryngoscope (VLS). Methodology: The present study was conducted on 100 adult patients of ages >18 yrs, of either sex, belonging to American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) I and II, scheduled to undergo non-ophthalmic elective surgery under general anesthesia. Patients were divided into two equal groups of 50 each, Group A and Group B. In group A (n = 50), lubricated appropriate sized LMA-S was inserted and in Group B (n=50), lubricated appropriate sized ETT was inserted by an anesthesiologist using VLS. IOP was measured in right eye just before insertion of device and subsequently at 1 min, 3 min, 5 min and 10 min after insertion of device. Hemodynamic parameters were recorded along with IOP measurement. Results: Both the groups were comparable regarding demographic data (p > 0.05), ASA grade (p = 0.069), and Mallampati grade (MPG) (p = 0.646). Airway establishment time (p = 0.011) was significantly less with C-MAC VLS. IOP were comparable at all measurement times, e.g., 1 min (p = 0.216), 3 min (p = 0.093), 5 min (p = 0.859) and 10 min (p = 0.060) after insertion of each device. Hemodynamic parameters measured were also comparable between two groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Both LMA Supreme and intubation using C-MAC® videolaryngoscope are safe regarding rise in intraocular pressure. Both methods can be safely used for airway management in suitable patients. Key words: Airway; Anesthesia; Intraocular pressure; LMA; Endotracheal intubation Citation: Kaur H, Singh G, Singh J, Kaur, Dhawan M, Singh A. Intraocular pressure response to airway management: Comparison between LMA Supreme and C-MAC® videolaryngoscope in day care surgery. Anaesth. pain intensive care 2020;24(6):__ Received: 27 January 2020, Revised: 12 May 2020, Reviewed: 25 October 2020, Accepted: 27 October 2020
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
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
56
审稿时长
4 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