Comparison of oropharyngeal leak pressure of LMA Protector and LMA-ProSeal in different head and neck positions in anaesthetized and paralyzed patients; A prospective randomized study.
Airway
anesthesia
head and neck
laryngeal mask
position
Journal
Indian journal of anaesthesia
ISSN: 0019-5049
Titre abrégé: Indian J Anaesth
Pays: India
ID NLM: 0013243
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2023
Feb 2023
Historique:
received:
26
04
2022
revised:
25
01
2023
accepted:
27
01
2023
medline:
24
4
2023
pubmed:
24
4
2023
entrez:
24
04
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) of LMA Protector is reported to be higher compared to other second generation supraglottic devices (SGDs) indicating better seal with patient's airway and hence enhanced safety. To ascertain its benefit in patients undergoing surgeries where head and neck position other than neutral is required, we conducted a prospective randomized study to compare OLP of LMA Protector with LMA-ProSeal (PLMA) with head and neck in neutral, extension, flexion, and rotation position. 80 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-II patients aged more than 18 years undergoing elective surgery under general anaesthesia were recruited. Patients were randomized in the LMA Protector or PLMA group. After induction of anaesthesia, OLP was measured in both the groups in different head and neck position. The insertion characteristics of both SGDs were also recorded and compared. The OLP of LMA Protector and PLMA was found to be comparable in neutral head position (p = 0.08). There was no significant difference in OLP of both devices in extension, flexion, or head rotation. In both the study groups, head extension position led to significant decrease in OLP compared to supine position. With the flexion and rotation positioning of head and neck, significant increase in OLP in each group was noted. The OLP of LMA Protector and PLMA are comparable in different head and neck position. With both the devices, there was significant decrease in OLP with extension whereas significant increase was noted in flexion and rotation of head and neck.
Sections du résumé
Background and Aims
UNASSIGNED
Oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) of LMA Protector is reported to be higher compared to other second generation supraglottic devices (SGDs) indicating better seal with patient's airway and hence enhanced safety. To ascertain its benefit in patients undergoing surgeries where head and neck position other than neutral is required, we conducted a prospective randomized study to compare OLP of LMA Protector with LMA-ProSeal (PLMA) with head and neck in neutral, extension, flexion, and rotation position.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
80 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-II patients aged more than 18 years undergoing elective surgery under general anaesthesia were recruited. Patients were randomized in the LMA Protector or PLMA group. After induction of anaesthesia, OLP was measured in both the groups in different head and neck position. The insertion characteristics of both SGDs were also recorded and compared.
Results
UNASSIGNED
The OLP of LMA Protector and PLMA was found to be comparable in neutral head position (p = 0.08). There was no significant difference in OLP of both devices in extension, flexion, or head rotation. In both the study groups, head extension position led to significant decrease in OLP compared to supine position. With the flexion and rotation positioning of head and neck, significant increase in OLP in each group was noted.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
The OLP of LMA Protector and PLMA are comparable in different head and neck position. With both the devices, there was significant decrease in OLP with extension whereas significant increase was noted in flexion and rotation of head and neck.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37091441
doi: 10.4103/ija.ija_371_22
pii: IJA-67-201
pmc: PMC10121088
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
201-206Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2023 Indian Journal of Anaesthesia.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
There are no conflicts of interest.
Références
BMC Anesthesiol. 2017 Feb 20;17(1):26
pubmed: 28219323
Minerva Anestesiol. 2018 Jun;84(6):684-692
pubmed: 29152934
BMC Anesthesiol. 2019 Jul 4;19(1):118
pubmed: 31272379
Minerva Anestesiol. 2019 Jan;85(1):45-52
pubmed: 30207132
Br J Anaesth. 1999 Feb;82(2):286-7
pubmed: 10365012
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2019 Mar;63(3):322-328
pubmed: 30229857
Br J Anaesth. 1991 Feb;66(2):157-62
pubmed: 1817614
PLoS One. 2019 May 9;14(5):e0216673
pubmed: 31071171
Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther. 2000 Nov;35(11):692-4
pubmed: 11130130
Anesth Analg. 2009 Jan;108(1):112-7
pubmed: 19095838