KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences / 2013 / Cilt: 43 - Sayı: 2

Comparison of the efficacies of I-gelTM and LMA-ProSealTM for airway management in pediatric patients

İlker Öngüç AYCAN
Serbülent Gökhan BEYAZ
Adnan TÜFEK
Orhan TOKGÖZ
Feyzi ÇELİK
Abdulmenap GÜZEL
Mustafa Uğur YÜKSEL
Sayfa
208–213
Yayın Tarihi
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Conclusion: This study suggested that I-gel is an effective and safe alternative supraglottic airway device for use in children.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:The present study was performed to compare the performance of I-gelTM with LMA-ProSealTM in children undergoing anesthesia.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Materials and methods: A total of 185 patients who were scheduled for elective surgery in Dicle University's hospital were randomly divided into 2 groups: the I-gelTM group (Group-I, n = 95) and the p-LMATM group (Group-P, n = 90).
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Conclusion: This study suggested that I-gel is an effective and safe alternative supraglottic airway device for use in children.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Key words: I-gelTM · LMA-ProSealTM · supraglottic airway device

Özet

The present study was performed to compare the performance of I-gelTM with LMA-ProSealTM in children undergoing anesthesia. Materials and methods: A total of 185 patients who were scheduled for elective surgery in Dicle University's hospital were randomly divided into 2 groups: the I-gelTM group (Group-I, n = 95) and the p-LMATM group (Group-P, n = 90). Airway leakage pressure, insertion time, fiberoptic laryngeal image scores, ease of insertion, and possible complications were compared between these groups. Results: The airway leakage pressure of Group-I was significantly higher than that of Group-P (means ± SD: 28 ± 5 vs. 20 ± 4 cmH2O, P < 0.01). The duration of supraglottic airway device insertion was shorter in Group-I than Group-P (19 ± 4 vs. 28 ± 5 s, P < 0.01). The overall success rate was 95% for Group-I and 94% for Group-P (P = 0.10). The I-gel provided a better view of the glottis than the p-LMA (93% of cases in Group-I and 68% of cases in Group-P, P = 0.03). There were no significant differences with regard to ease of insertion (P = 0.97). Conclusion: This study suggested that I-gel is an effective and safe alternative supraglottic airway device for use in children.

Abstract

The present study was performed to compare the performance of I-gelTM with LMA-ProSealTM in children undergoing anesthesia. Materials and methods: A total of 185 patients who were scheduled for elective surgery in Dicle University's hospital were randomly divided into 2 groups: the I-gelTM group (Group-I, n = 95) and the p-LMATM group (Group-P, n = 90). Airway leakage pressure, insertion time, fiberoptic laryngeal image scores, ease of insertion, and possible complications were compared between these groups. Results: The airway leakage pressure of Group-I was significantly higher than that of Group-P (means ± SD: 28 ± 5 vs. 20 ± 4 cmH2O, P < 0.01). The duration of supraglottic airway device insertion was shorter in Group-I than Group-P (19 ± 4 vs. 28 ± 5 s, P < 0.01). The overall success rate was 95% for Group-I and 94% for Group-P (P = 0.10). The I-gel provided a better view of the glottis than the p-LMA (93% of cases in Group-I and 68% of cases in Group-P, P = 0.03). There were no significant differences with regard to ease of insertion (P = 0.97). Conclusion: This study suggested that I-gel is an effective and safe alternative supraglottic airway device for use in children.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

AYCAN, İ. Ö., BEYAZ, S. G., TÜFEK, A., TOKGÖZ, O., ÇELİK, F., GÜZEL, A., YÜKSEL, M. U. (2022). Comparison of the efficacies of I-gelTM and LMA-ProSealTM for airway management in pediatric patients. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, Cilt: 43 - Sayı: 2, 208–213. https://ajindex.com/articles/611070

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (11)

  1. Nolan JP, Deakin CD, Soar J, Bottiger BW, Smith G, European Resuscitation Council. European Resuscitation Council guidelines for resuscitation 2005. Section 4. Adult advanced life support. Resuscitation 2005; 67: S39–86. Katz SH, Falk JL. Misplaced endotracheal tubes by paramedics in an urban emergency medical services system. Ann Emerg Med 2001; 37: 32–7.
  2. Holm-Knudsen RJ, Rasmussen LS. Paediatric airway management: basic aspects. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2009; 53: 1– Beylacq L, Bordes M, Semjen F, Cros AM. The I-gel, a singleuse supraglottic airway device with a non-inflatable cuff and an esophageal vent: an observational study in children. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2009; 53: 376–9. Brimacombe J. Analysis of 1500 laryngeal mask uses by one anaesthetist in adults undergoing routine anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 1996; 51: 76–80.
  3. Lopez-Gil M, Brimacombe J, Alvarez M. Safety and efficacy of the laryngeal mask airway. A prospective survey of 1400 children. Anaesthesia 1996; 51: 969–72.
  4. Sahin A, Tufek A, Cingu AK, Caca I, Tokgoz O, Balsak S. The effect of I-gel airway on intraocular pressure in pediatric patients who received sevoflurane or desflurane during strabismus surgery. Paediatr Anaesth 2012; 22: 772–5.
  5. Karabıyık L, Öncül S, Emmez G. The effects of the Cobra perilaryngeal airway on intraocular pressure. Turk J Med Sci 2012; 42: 667–73.
  6. Barker P, Langton JA, Murphy PJ, Rowbotham DJ. Regurgitation of gastric contents during general anaesthesia using the laryngeal mask airway. Br J Anaesth 1992; 69: 314–5.
  7. Schmidbauer W, Bercker S, Volk T, Bogusch G, Mager G, Kerner T. Oesophageal seal of the novel supralaryngeal airway device I-Gel in comparison with the laryngeal mask airways Classic and ProSeal using a cadaver model. Br J Anaesth 2009; 102: 135–9.
  8. Endo K, Okabe Y, Maruyama Y, Tsukatani T, Furukawa M. Bilateral vocal cord paralysis caused by laryngeal mask airway. Am J Otolaryngol 2007; 28: 126–9.
  9. Wong JG, Heaney M, Chambers NA, Erb TO, von UngernSternberg BS. Impact of laryngeal mask airway cuff pressures on the incidence of sore throat in children. Paediatr Anaesth 2009; 19: 464–9.
  10. Brimacombe J, Holyoake L, Keller C, Brimacombe N, Scully M, Barry J et al. Pharyngolaryngeal, neck, and jaw discomfort after anesthesia with the face mask and laryngeal mask airway at high and low cuff volumes in males and females. Anesthesiology 2000; 93: 26–31.
  11. Levitan RM, Kinkle WC. Initial anatomic investigations of the I-gel airway: a novel supraglottic airway without inflatabl