The effects of laryngeal mask airway versus endotracheal tube on atelectasis in patients undergoing general anesthesia assessed by lung ultrasound: A protocol for a prospective, randomized controlled trial.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
20
02
2022
accepted:
26
07
2022
entrez:
9
9
2022
pubmed:
10
9
2022
medline:
14
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The incidence of atelectasis is high in patients undergoing general anesthesia. This may cause oxygenation impairment and further contribute to postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). As important airway management devices for general anesthesia, few studies have compared the effects of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) and endotracheal tube (ETT) on atelectasis. Additionally, lung ultrasound has been increasingly used for bedside atelectasis diagnosis. For the above considerations, this trial is designed to compare the effects of LMA and ETT on atelectasis assessed by lung ultrasound scores, further providing more powerful clinical evidence for perioperative respiratory management of non-laparoscopic elective lower abdominal surgery under general anesthesia. This is a prospective, single-center, single-blind, randomized controlled trial. From July 2021 to July 2022, 180 patients undergoing elective non-laparoscopic lower abdominal surgery under general anesthesia will be recruited and randomly divided into the ETT and LMA groups at a ratio of 1:1. The primary outcome is the total atelectasis LUS of 12 lung regions 15 min after the establishment of the artificial airway. The total atelectasis LUS at the end of surgery and 30 min after extubation, oxygenation index, postoperative airway complications, PPCs, and length of stay will be analyzed as secondary indicators. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: ChiCTR1900020818. Registered on January 20, 2019. Registered with the name of "Laryngeal mask airway versus endotracheal tube for atelectasis." URL: https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=35143.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The incidence of atelectasis is high in patients undergoing general anesthesia. This may cause oxygenation impairment and further contribute to postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). As important airway management devices for general anesthesia, few studies have compared the effects of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) and endotracheal tube (ETT) on atelectasis. Additionally, lung ultrasound has been increasingly used for bedside atelectasis diagnosis. For the above considerations, this trial is designed to compare the effects of LMA and ETT on atelectasis assessed by lung ultrasound scores, further providing more powerful clinical evidence for perioperative respiratory management of non-laparoscopic elective lower abdominal surgery under general anesthesia.
METHODS
This is a prospective, single-center, single-blind, randomized controlled trial. From July 2021 to July 2022, 180 patients undergoing elective non-laparoscopic lower abdominal surgery under general anesthesia will be recruited and randomly divided into the ETT and LMA groups at a ratio of 1:1. The primary outcome is the total atelectasis LUS of 12 lung regions 15 min after the establishment of the artificial airway. The total atelectasis LUS at the end of surgery and 30 min after extubation, oxygenation index, postoperative airway complications, PPCs, and length of stay will be analyzed as secondary indicators.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: ChiCTR1900020818. Registered on January 20, 2019. Registered with the name of "Laryngeal mask airway versus endotracheal tube for atelectasis." URL: https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=35143.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36084154
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273410
pii: PONE-D-22-02593
pmc: PMC9462747
doi:
Banques de données
ChiCTR
['ChiCTR1900020818']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial Protocol
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0273410Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Pediatr Pulmonol. 2020 May;55(5):1273-1281
pubmed: 32150673
Compr Physiol. 2012 Jan;2(1):69-96
pubmed: 23728971
BMC Anesthesiol. 2022 May 2;22(1):134
pubmed: 35501676
Anaesthesia. 2007 Jan;62(1):18-22
pubmed: 17156222
Anesth Analg. 2017 Feb;124(2):494-504
pubmed: 27669555
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2012 Feb;25(1):1-10
pubmed: 22113182
Br J Anaesth. 2020 Jan;124(1):101-109
pubmed: 31733807
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2012 Jul;56(6):675-85
pubmed: 22471648
Anesthesiology. 2014 Jun;120(6):1370-9
pubmed: 24662376
J Clin Anesth. 2020 Dec;67:110009
pubmed: 32836188
J Physiother. 2021 Jan;67(1):41-48
pubmed: 33353830
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2021 Oct 1;38(10):1026-1033
pubmed: 33534267
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2019 Dec;36(12):955-962
pubmed: 31644512
Br J Anaesth. 2018 May;120(5):1066-1079
pubmed: 29661384
Crit Care Med. 2022 May 1;50(5):750-759
pubmed: 34582414
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2016 Dec;42(12):2775-2784
pubmed: 27639431
Anaesthesia. 2019 Feb;74(2):225-236
pubmed: 30460982
Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2019 May;20(5):442-449
pubmed: 31058784
BMC Anesthesiol. 2020 Mar 19;20(1):68
pubmed: 32192431
BMC Med. 2010 Mar 24;8:18
pubmed: 20334633
Anesthesiology. 1999 Feb;90(2):395-7
pubmed: 9952143
Anesthesiology. 2005 Apr;102(4):838-54
pubmed: 15791115
Br J Anaesth. 2003 Jul;91(1):61-72
pubmed: 12821566
Intensive Care Med. 2005 Oct;31(10):1327-35
pubmed: 16132894
J Clin Anesth. 2021 Sep;72:110285
pubmed: 33838534
J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Jan-Mar;34(1):58-61
pubmed: 29643624
Anaesthesia. 2017 Feb;72(2):214-222
pubmed: 27804117
Br J Anaesth. 1991 Apr;66(4):423-32
pubmed: 2025468
N Engl J Med. 1963 Nov 7;269:991-6
pubmed: 14059732
Br J Anaesth. 2019 Dec;123(6):898-913
pubmed: 31587835