What is it about?
Proseal LMA vs. Endotracheal Intubation in General Anaesthesia for Abdominal Surgeries
Featured Image
Photo by Piron Guillaume on Unsplash
Why is it important?
Varients of supraglottic airway devices are generally used in difficult airways or in daycare surgeries to bypass the consequences of endotracheal intubation or to replace tracheal intubation. In this study, the aim was to evaluate the advantages of proseal LMA over endotracheal tubes in the prospects of ease of insertion and efficacy for positive pressure ventilation without the risk of regurgitation and aspiration and without any detrimental variations in hemodynamics. A randomized clinical study was carried out on 80 patients of either sex belonging to ASA Grade I and II, proposed for abdominal surgeries under general anaesthesia and were randomly allocated in two groups (Group I Proseal LMA and Group II Endotracheal intubation). Parameters observed were ease of insertion (number of attempts), insertion or intubation time of device and nasogastric tube and effects on hemodynamics. 40 patients were included in each group. Success rate for insertion of device in first attempt was 93% in group I and 99% in group II. Mean insertion time in group I was 15.57 seconds and 22.24 seconds in group II, which was statistically insignificant (p<0.1). Mean nasogastric tube (Ryle’s tube) insertion time in group I was 9.96 seconds in compare to group II, where the mean time was 12.55 seconds, which was statistically significant. The conditions for proper and adequate ventilation to maintain 100% oxygen saturation in both groups were satisfactory without any air leak. According to this study, it can be concluded that Proseal LMA is a safer and effective alternative for endotracheal tubes in general anaesthesia.
Perspectives
Varients of supraglottic airway devices are generally used in difficult airways or in daycare surgeries to bypass the consequences of endotracheal intubation or to replace tracheal intubation. In this study, the aim was to evaluate the advantages of proseal LMA over endotracheal tubes in the prospects of ease of insertion and efficacy for positive pressure ventilation without the risk of regurgitation and aspiration and without any detrimental variations in hemodynamics. A randomized clinical study was carried out on 80 patients of either sex belonging to ASA Grade I and II, proposed for abdominal surgeries under general anaesthesia and were randomly allocated in two groups (Group I Proseal LMA and Group II Endotracheal intubation). Parameters observed were ease of insertion (number of attempts), insertion or intubation time of device and nasogastric tube and effects on hemodynamics. 40 patients were included in each group. Success rate for insertion of device in first attempt was 93% in group I and 99% in group II. Mean insertion time in group I was 15.57 seconds and 22.24 seconds in group II, which was statistically insignificant (p<0.1). Mean nasogastric tube (Ryle’s tube) insertion time in group I was 9.96 seconds in compare to group II, where the mean time was 12.55 seconds, which was statistically significant. The conditions for proper and adequate ventilation to maintain 100% oxygen saturation in both groups were satisfactory without any air leak. According to this study, it can be concluded that Proseal LMA is a safer and effective alternative for endotracheal tubes in general anaesthesia.
Red Flower Publication Publications
Red Flower Publication Pvt Ltd
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Proseal LMA vs. Endotracheal Intubation in General Anaesthesia for Abdominal Surgeries, Indian Journal of Anaesthesia and Analgesia, January 2018, Red Flower Publication Private, Ltd.,
DOI: 10.21088/ijaa.2349.8471.51018.2.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
