{"title":"两种声门上气道装置治疗儿童术后咽喉疼痛的比较:随机前瞻性对照研究","authors":"Malika Hameed, Khalid Samad, Hameed Ullah","doi":"10.1016/j.bjan.2020.03.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and objective</h3><p>Sore throat is well recognized complaint after receiving general anesthesia. This study is conducted to compare the severity and frequency of postoperative sore throat in children undergoing elective surgery – following the use of Ambu laryngeal mask airway) or I‐gel® – who are able to self‐report postoperative sore throat.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>Seventy children, 6 to 16 years‐old, undergoing elective surgery randomly allocated to either Ambu laryngeal mask (Ambu Group) or I‐gel® (I‐gel Group). After the procedure, patients were interviewed in the recovery room immediately, after one hour, 6 and 24 hours postoperatively by an independent observer blinded to the device used intra‐operatively.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>On arrival in the recovery room 17.1% (n<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->6) of children of the Ambu Group complained of postoperative sore throat, against 5.7% in I‐gel Group (n<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->2). After one hour, the results were similar. After 6 hours, postoperative sore throat was found in 8.6% (n<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->3) of the children in Ambu group vs. 2.9% (n<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->1) in I‐gel Group. After 24<!--> <!-->hours, 2.9% (n<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->1) of the kids in Ambu Group compared to none in I‐gel Group. There was no significant difference found in the incidence of postoperative sore throat in both devices on arrival (<em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.28); after 1 hour (<em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.28); after 6 hours (<em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.30); and after 24 hours (<em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.31). The duration of the insertion was shorter in Ambu Group and it was easier to insert the I‐gel® (<em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.029). Oropharyngeal seal pressure of I‐gel® was higher than that of Ambu laryngeal mask (<em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The severity and frequency of postoperative sore throat in children is not statistically significant in the I‐gel Group compared to Ambu Group.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":21261,"journal":{"name":"Revista brasileira de anestesiologia","volume":"70 3","pages":"Pages 240-247"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.bjan.2020.03.006","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparação entre dois dispositivos supraglóticos de vias aéreas na dor de garganta pós‐operatória em crianças: estudo controlado prospectivo randomizado\",\"authors\":\"Malika Hameed, Khalid Samad, Hameed Ullah\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.bjan.2020.03.006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background and objective</h3><p>Sore throat is well recognized complaint after receiving general anesthesia. This study is conducted to compare the severity and frequency of postoperative sore throat in children undergoing elective surgery – following the use of Ambu laryngeal mask airway) or I‐gel® – who are able to self‐report postoperative sore throat.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>Seventy children, 6 to 16 years‐old, undergoing elective surgery randomly allocated to either Ambu laryngeal mask (Ambu Group) or I‐gel® (I‐gel Group). After the procedure, patients were interviewed in the recovery room immediately, after one hour, 6 and 24 hours postoperatively by an independent observer blinded to the device used intra‐operatively.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>On arrival in the recovery room 17.1% (n<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->6) of children of the Ambu Group complained of postoperative sore throat, against 5.7% in I‐gel Group (n<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->2). After one hour, the results were similar. After 6 hours, postoperative sore throat was found in 8.6% (n<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->3) of the children in Ambu group vs. 2.9% (n<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->1) in I‐gel Group. After 24<!--> <!-->hours, 2.9% (n<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->1) of the kids in Ambu Group compared to none in I‐gel Group. There was no significant difference found in the incidence of postoperative sore throat in both devices on arrival (<em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.28); after 1 hour (<em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.28); after 6 hours (<em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.30); and after 24 hours (<em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.31). The duration of the insertion was shorter in Ambu Group and it was easier to insert the I‐gel® (<em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.029). Oropharyngeal seal pressure of I‐gel® was higher than that of Ambu laryngeal mask (<em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The severity and frequency of postoperative sore throat in children is not statistically significant in the I‐gel Group compared to Ambu Group.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21261,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista brasileira de anestesiologia\",\"volume\":\"70 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 240-247\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.bjan.2020.03.006\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista brasileira de anestesiologia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034709419305483\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista brasileira de anestesiologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034709419305483","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparação entre dois dispositivos supraglóticos de vias aéreas na dor de garganta pós‐operatória em crianças: estudo controlado prospectivo randomizado
Background and objective
Sore throat is well recognized complaint after receiving general anesthesia. This study is conducted to compare the severity and frequency of postoperative sore throat in children undergoing elective surgery – following the use of Ambu laryngeal mask airway) or I‐gel® – who are able to self‐report postoperative sore throat.
Method
Seventy children, 6 to 16 years‐old, undergoing elective surgery randomly allocated to either Ambu laryngeal mask (Ambu Group) or I‐gel® (I‐gel Group). After the procedure, patients were interviewed in the recovery room immediately, after one hour, 6 and 24 hours postoperatively by an independent observer blinded to the device used intra‐operatively.
Results
On arrival in the recovery room 17.1% (n = 6) of children of the Ambu Group complained of postoperative sore throat, against 5.7% in I‐gel Group (n = 2). After one hour, the results were similar. After 6 hours, postoperative sore throat was found in 8.6% (n = 3) of the children in Ambu group vs. 2.9% (n = 1) in I‐gel Group. After 24 hours, 2.9% (n = 1) of the kids in Ambu Group compared to none in I‐gel Group. There was no significant difference found in the incidence of postoperative sore throat in both devices on arrival (p = 0.28); after 1 hour (p = 0.28); after 6 hours (p = 0.30); and after 24 hours (p = 0.31). The duration of the insertion was shorter in Ambu Group and it was easier to insert the I‐gel® (p = 0.029). Oropharyngeal seal pressure of I‐gel® was higher than that of Ambu laryngeal mask (p = 0.001).
Conclusion
The severity and frequency of postoperative sore throat in children is not statistically significant in the I‐gel Group compared to Ambu Group.
期刊介绍:
The Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology is the official journal of the Brazilian Anesthesiology Society. It publishes articles classified into the following categories:
-Scientific articles (clinical or experimental trials)-
Clinical information (case reports)-
Reviews-
Letters to the Editor-
Editorials.
The journal focuses primarily on clinical trials, with scope on clinical practice, aiming at providing applied tools to the anesthesiologist and critical care physician.
The Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology accepts articles exclusively forwarded to it. Articles already published in other journals are not accepted. All articles proposed for publication are previously submitted to the analysis of two or more members of the Editorial Board or other specialized consultants.