Comparison of the oropharyngeal leak pressure between three second generation supraglottic airway devices during laparoscopic surgery in pediatric patients.
Laryngeal Mask Airway
airway
laparoscopy
pediatric
Journal
Paediatric anaesthesia
ISSN: 1460-9592
Titre abrégé: Paediatr Anaesth
Pays: France
ID NLM: 9206575
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2022
07 2022
Historique:
revised:
10
03
2022
received:
31
05
2021
accepted:
16
03
2022
pubmed:
27
3
2022
medline:
9
6
2022
entrez:
26
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Previous studies have shown Proseal LMA and I gel similar to endotracheal intubation in ventilatory ability in pediatric laparoscopic surgeries. The primary aim of this study was to assess whether there is a significant difference in the oropharyngeal leak pressure between Ambu Auragrain, I-gel, and Proseal LMA during pediatric laparoscopic surgery. In this randomized controlled trial, 90 male patients of American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I aged between 6 months and 10 years who were scheduled for laparoscopic single-sided inguinal hernia repair were recruited and randomly allocated to three groups in which airway was secured with Ambu Auragain, I gel, or Proseal LMA. The primary outcome was oropharyngeal leak pressure. The secondary outcomes were peak pressures before and after pneumoperitoneum, fiberoptic view, insertion attempts, insertion time, manipulations, perioperative and postoperative anesthesia-related problems. Continuous variables were compared using the one-way analysis of variance or the Kruskal-Wallis test with post hoc Turkey analysis. Categorical and ordinal data were compared using the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test. Oropharyngeal leak pressure before pneumoperitoneum was higher with I gel as compared to Ambu Auragain (27.36 ± 5.72 cm of H I gel had a higher oropharyngeal leak pressure than the other two supraglottic airway devices and therefore may represent a better choice in situations where higher ventilatory pressures may be necessary, for example, in extremes of weight trendelenburg position, etc. CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER: Clinical trial registry of India (CTRI/2018/11/016445).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Previous studies have shown Proseal LMA and I gel similar to endotracheal intubation in ventilatory ability in pediatric laparoscopic surgeries.
AIMS
The primary aim of this study was to assess whether there is a significant difference in the oropharyngeal leak pressure between Ambu Auragrain, I-gel, and Proseal LMA during pediatric laparoscopic surgery.
METHODS
In this randomized controlled trial, 90 male patients of American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I aged between 6 months and 10 years who were scheduled for laparoscopic single-sided inguinal hernia repair were recruited and randomly allocated to three groups in which airway was secured with Ambu Auragain, I gel, or Proseal LMA. The primary outcome was oropharyngeal leak pressure. The secondary outcomes were peak pressures before and after pneumoperitoneum, fiberoptic view, insertion attempts, insertion time, manipulations, perioperative and postoperative anesthesia-related problems. Continuous variables were compared using the one-way analysis of variance or the Kruskal-Wallis test with post hoc Turkey analysis. Categorical and ordinal data were compared using the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test.
RESULTS
Oropharyngeal leak pressure before pneumoperitoneum was higher with I gel as compared to Ambu Auragain (27.36 ± 5.72 cm of H
CONCLUSION
I gel had a higher oropharyngeal leak pressure than the other two supraglottic airway devices and therefore may represent a better choice in situations where higher ventilatory pressures may be necessary, for example, in extremes of weight trendelenburg position, etc. CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER: Clinical trial registry of India (CTRI/2018/11/016445).
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
843-850Informations de copyright
© 2022 John Wiley&Sons Ltd.
Références
Aydogmus MT, Turk HS, Oba S, Unsal O, Sinikoglu SN. Can Supreme™ laryngeal mask airway be an alternative to endotracheal intubation in laparoscopic surgery? Braz J Anesthesiol. 2014;64(1):66-70.
Pennant HJ. Anesthesia for laparoscopy in the pediatric patient. Anest Clin Nort Am. 2001;19:69-88.
Luce V, Harkouk H, Brasher C, et al. Supraglottic airway devices vs tracheal intubation in children: a quantitative meta-analysis of respiratory complications. Paediatr Anaesth. 2014;24(10):1088-1098.
Ozdamar D, Güvenç BH, Toker K, Solak M, Ekingen G. Comparison of the effect of LMA and ETT on ventilation and intragastric pressure in pediatric laparoscopic procedures. Minerva Anestesiol. 2010;76(8):592-599.
Sinha A, Sharma B, Sood J. ProSeal as an alternative to endotracheal intubation in paediatric laparoscopy. Paediatr Anaesth. 2007;17:327-332.
Tulgar S, Boga I, Cakiroglu B, Thomas DT. Short-lasting pediatric laparoscopic surgery: are muscle relaxants necessary? Endotracheal intubation vs. laryngeal mask airway. J Pediatr Surg. 2017 Nov;52(11):1705-1710.
Kohli M, Wadhawan S, Bhadoria P, Ratan SK. Comparative evaluation of I-gel vs. endotracheal intubation for adequacy of ventilation in pediatric patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2019;35(1):30-35.
Verghese C, Berlet J, Kapila A, Pollard R. Clinical assessment of the single use laryngeal mask airway-the LMA-unique. Br J Anaesth. 1998;80:677-679.
Goyal R, Chauhan R, Anand R, Goyal M. A prospective single-center observational study to assess the efficacy of the second-generation supraglottic airway device I-gel in laparoscopic surgeries in children. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2020;36(1):20-24.
Keller C, Brimacombe JR, Keller K, Morris R. comparison of four methods for assessing airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in adult patients. Br J Anaesth. 1999;82:286-287.
Lopez-Gil M, Brimacombe J, Keller C. A comparison of four methods for assessing oropharyngeal leak pressure with the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) in paediatric patients. Paediatr Anaesth. 2001;11:319-321.
Mishra SK, Sivaraman B, Balachander H, et al. Effect of pneumoperitoneum and trendelenberg position on oropharyngeal sealing pressure of I-gel and proseal LMA in laparoscopic gynaecological sur- gery: a randomized controlled trial. Anaesth Essays Res. 2015;9:353-358.
Rustagi P, Patkar GA, Ourasang AK, Tendolkar BA. Effect of Pneumoperitoneum and Lateral Position on Oropharyngeal Seal Pressures of Proseal LMA in Laparoscopic Urological Procedures. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11(2):UC05-UC09.
Kang JE, Oh CS, Choi JW, Son IS, Kim SH. Postoperative pharyngolaryngeal adverse events with laryngeal mask airway (LMA Supreme) in laparoscopic surgical procedures with cuff pressure limiting 25 cm H₂O: prospective, blind, and randomised study. Scientific World J. 2014;2014:1-7.
Kim HJ, Park HS, Kim SY, Ro YJ, Yang HS, Koh WU. A randomized controlled trial comparing ambu auragain and i-gel in young pediatric patients. J Clin Med. 2019;8(8):1235.
Mihara T, Nakayama R, Ka K, Goto T. Comparison of the clinical performance of i-gel and Ambu AuraGain in children: A randomized noninferiority clinical trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2019;36(6):411-417.
Smith P, Bailey CR. A performance comparison of the paediatric i-gel with other supraglottic airway devices. Anaesthesia. 2015;70(1):84-92.
Das B, Mitra S, Jamil SN, Varshney RK. Comparison of three supraglottic devices in anesthetized paralyzed children undergoing elective surgery. Saudi J Anaesth. 2012;6(3):224-228.
Lee YC, Yoon KS, Park SY, Choi SR, Chung CJ. A comparison of i-gel™ and Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme™ during general anesthesia in infants. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2018;71(1):37-42.
Inagawa G, Okuda K, Miwa T, Hiroki K. Higher airway seal does not imply adequate positioning of laryngeal mask airways in paediatric patients. Paediatr Anaesth. 2002;12(4):322-326.