Journals / Ankara Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi Tıp Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 53 - Sayı: 2

PERIOPERATIVE AIRWAY QUALITY IN CHILDREN WITH SUPRAGLOTTIC AIRWAY DEVICES

SUPRAGLOTTİK HAVAYOLU GEREÇLERİ KULLANILAN ÇOCUKLARDA PERİOPERATİF HAVAYOLU KALİTESİ

Pages
97–100
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

CONCLUSION: In this study, it was concluded that Classic LMA and İ-gel LMA can be both used effectively in pediatric cases between the ages of 2-7.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:AIM: Supraglottic airway devices are widely used for airway control and mechanical ventilation.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of this study was to evaluate the conditions for insertion and the effectiveness of ventilation with 2 different supraglottic airway devices (LMA Classic, I-gel LMA) in pediatric surgery cases less than 1 hour.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:CONCLUSION: In this study, it was concluded that Classic LMA and İ-gel LMA can be both used effectively in pediatric cases between the ages of 2-7.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

AIM: Supraglottic airway devices are widely used for airway control and mechanical ventilation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the conditions for insertion and the effectiveness of ventilation with 2 different supraglottic airway devices (LMA Classic, I-gel LMA) in pediatric surgery cases less than 1 hour. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Sixty, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Class I–II children, aged 2–7 years-old were included in the study after obtaining informed consent from their parents. 2.5 mg/kg propofol, 1 µg/kg fentanyl, 1 mg/kg lidocaine and 0.2 mg/kg rocuronium were administered for the induction of anesthesia. Anesthesia was maintained with a mixture of 2 L/min 50% N2O-O2 and 2% Sevoflurane. The demographic data of the cases, type of LMA used, size of the LMA, number of insertion attempts, LMA insertion time, LMA Oral Leak Pressure were recorded. Ease of insertion for LMA was evaluated by the operator over 3 points (1: Very easy, 2: Easy 3: Difficult). The appearance of vocal cords was checked with Fiberoptic Bronchoscope (FOB) and evaluated over 4 points. SPSS package data 23 program was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found between the demographic data of the patients, number of attempts for insertion, LMA insertion time, ease of insertion, LMA Oral Leak Pressure and glottic appearance with FOB. CONCLUSION: In this study, it was concluded that Classic LMA and İ-gel LMA can be both used effectively in pediatric cases between the ages of 2-7.

Özet

AMAÇ: Supraglottik havayolu araçları havayolunun kontrolüve mekanik ventilasyon için yaygın olarak kullanılmaktadır. Buçalışmada 1 saatten kısa süreli pediatrik cerrahi olgularında 2 farklısupraglottik havayolu aletinin (Klasik LMA, İ-gel LMA) yerleştirmekoşulları ve ventilasyondaki etkinliğinin değerlendirilmesiamaçlanmıştır.GEREÇ VE YÖNTEM: 2-7 yaş arası ASA I-II grubu 60 pediatrikolgu, ailelerinden onam alınarak çalışmaya dahil edilmiştir. Anesteziindüksiyonu için 2,5 mg/kg propofol, 1 µg/kg fentanil, 1 mg/kglidokain ve 0,2 mg/kg rokuronyum uygulanmıştır. Anestezi idamesi2 L/dk % 50 N2O – O2 karışımı içinde % 2 Sevofluran ile sağlanmıştır.Olguların demografik verileri, kullanılan LMA tipi, LMA boyutu,LMA’nın kaçıncı denemede yerleştirildiği, LMA yerleştirme süresi,LMA Oral Kaçak Basıncı kaydedilmiştir. Uygulayıcı tarafındanLMA’nın yerleştirme kolaylığı 3 puan üzerinden (1: Çok kolay,2: Kolay 3: Zor) değerlendirilmiştir. Vokal kordların görünümü iseFiberoptik Bronkoskop (FOB) ile kontrol edilerek 4 puan üzerindendeğerlendirilmiştir. İstatistiksel analiz için SPSS paket veri 23programı kullanılmıştır.BULGULAR: Grupların demografik verilerinde istatistiksel olarakanlamlı fark bulunmamıştır. LMA deneme sayısı, yerleştirme süresi,uygulama kolaylığı, Oral Kaçak Basıncı ve FOB ile glottik görünümaçısından da istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulunmamıştır. İlkdenemede yerleştirme açısından gruplar arasında anlamlı farkbulunmamıştır.SONUÇ: Bu çalışmada 2-7 yaş arası pediatrik olgularda KlasikLMA ile İ-gel LMA’nın aynı etkinlikte kullanılabildiği sonucunavarılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KOTANOĞLU, M. S., BALTACI, B., BEKTAŞ, M., ÇAKIRCA, M., NAKİP, M., VARLI, M., BAŞAR, H. (2022). PERIOPERATIVE AIRWAY QUALITY IN CHILDREN WITH SUPRAGLOTTIC AIRWAY DEVICES. Ankara Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 53 - Sayı: 2, 97–100. https://ajindex.com/articles/441238

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. )Brain AIJ. The laryngeal mask-a new concept in airway management. Br J Anaesth. 1983
  2. 801–6. doi: 10.1093/bja/55.8.801 2.)Ramesh S, Jayanthi R. Supraglottic airway devices in children. Indian J Anaesth. 2011
  3. 476–82. doi: 10.4103/0019-5049.89874 3.)Goyal R. Small is the new big: An overview of newer supraglottic airways for children. Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2015
  4. 440–9. doi: 10.4103/0970-9185.169048 4.)Sinha A, Sharma B, Sood J. Pressure vs. Volume Control Ventilation: Effects on Gastric Insufflation with Size-1 LMA. Pediatr Anesth. 2010
  5. 1111–7. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2010.03450.x 5.)Kundra P, Deepak R, Ravishankar M. Laryngeal Mask insertion in children: A rational approach. Paediatr Anaesth. 2003
  6. 685–90. doi:10.1046/j.1460-9592.2003.01134.x 6.)White MC, Cook TM, Stoddart P. A critique of elective pediatric supraglottic airway devices. Pediatr Anesth 2009
  7. 55–65. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2009.02997.x 7.)Lee JR, Kim MS, Kim JT, et al. A randomised trial comparing the İ‐gel with the LMA Classic in children. Anaesthesia. 2012
  8. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2012.07072.x 8.)Bais PS, Tyagi A, Saxena D, et al. Comparison of ClassicLaryngeal Mask Airway with I-Gel Airway,during Anaesthesia with Controlled Ventilation in Routine Surgical Procedures. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences 2017
  9. doi: 10.9790/0853-1610133943 9.)Saran S, Mishra SK, Badhe AS, et al. Comparison of i-gel supraglottic airway and LMA-ProSeal™ in pediatric patients under controlled ventilation. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2014
  10. 195–8. doi: 10.4103/0970-9185.130013 10.)Das B, Mitra S, Jamil SN, et al. Comparison of three supraglottic devices in anesthetised paralyzed children undergoing elective surgery. Saudi J Anaesth. 2012
  11. 224–8. doi: 10.4103/1658-354X.101212 11.)Lee JH, Cho HS Shin WJ, Yang HS. A comparison of supraglottic airway i-gelTM vs. classic laryngeal mask airway in small children. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2014
  12. doi: 10.4097/kjae.2014.66.2.127 12.)Singh J, Yadav MK, Marahatta SB, et al. Randomized crossover comparison of the laryngeal mask airway classic with i-gel laryngeal mask airway in the management of difficult airway in post burn neck contracture patients. Indian J Anaesth. 2012
  13. doi: 10.4103/0019-5049.100815 13.)Sreenivasarao S, Seshaiah S, Faheem K. A Prospective, Randomized, Comparative Study of Ease of Insertion of Laryngeal Mask Airwayclassic and I-Gel Supra Glottic Airway Devices i