What is it about?
Oropharyngeal Airway in Spontaneously Breathing Anaesthetized Patients for Short Surgical Procedure
Featured Image
Photo by Önder Örtel on Unsplash
Why is it important?
Background: No anaesthesia is safe or satisfactory unless diligent efforts are made towards maintenance of functioning, unobstructed airway. LMA & COPA both devices can be used to establish an airway for spontaneously breathing anaesthetized patient with little difficult or trauma. Hence the attempt was made to organized randomized clinical comparative study with regards to usefulness & complications of LMA & COPA. Method: Total 60 patients of ASA Grade I and Grade II undergoing elective surgical procedures with both sexes, ranging in the age from 18 to 55 years were included. Informed written consent was obtained from each patient and the procedure explained to the patient. A through pre-operative examination and detailed history was competed according to the proforma. The patients were randomly assigned to either LMA or COPA placement. Result: The demographic data of all patients were comparable in both the groups (p>0.05). First time successful insertion rate was higher in LMA group (93.33%) than in COPA group (83.33%). Airway interventions required more often with COPA & “hands free” ventilation was better with LMA then with COPA. With respect to hemodynamic variables LMA & COPA are equivalents. Conclusion: Considering technical aspects of airway management, LMA is better than COPA with respect higher first time success rate of LMA. More airway manipulation is required with COPA. With respect to hemodynamic stability, LMA & COPA are equivalent. LMA is associated with more incidences of sore throat in immediate postoperative period than COPA. Postoperative late sore throat incidences are similar with LMA & COPA.
Perspectives
Background: No anaesthesia is safe or satisfactory unless diligent efforts are made towards maintenance of functioning, unobstructed airway. LMA & COPA both devices can be used to establish an airway for spontaneously breathing anaesthetized patient with little difficult or trauma. Hence the attempt was made to organized randomized clinical comparative study with regards to usefulness & complications of LMA & COPA. Method: Total 60 patients of ASA Grade I and Grade II undergoing elective surgical procedures with both sexes, ranging in the age from 18 to 55 years were included. Informed written consent was obtained from each patient and the procedure explained to the patient. A through pre-operative examination and detailed history was competed according to the proforma. The patients were randomly assigned to either LMA or COPA placement. Result: The demographic data of all patients were comparable in both the groups (p>0.05). First time successful insertion rate was higher in LMA group (93.33%) than in COPA group (83.33%). Airway interventions required more often with COPA & “hands free” ventilation was better with LMA then with COPA. With respect to hemodynamic variables LMA & COPA are equivalents. Conclusion: Considering technical aspects of airway management, LMA is better than COPA with respect higher first time success rate of LMA. More airway manipulation is required with COPA. With respect to hemodynamic stability, LMA & COPA are equivalent. LMA is associated with more incidences of sore throat in immediate postoperative period than COPA. Postoperative late sore throat incidences are similar with LMA & COPA.
Red Flower Publication Publications
Red Flower Publication Pvt Ltd
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Comparison of Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) & Cuffed Oropharyngeal Airway (COPA) in Spontaneously Breathing Anaesthetized Patients for Short Surgical Procedure, Indian Journal of Anaesthesia and Analgesia, January 2019, Red Flower Publication Private, Ltd.,
DOI: 10.21088/ijaa.2349.8471.6219.18.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
