Department of Anesthesiology, AIIMS, Patna, India.
Department of Trauma & Emergency, AIIMS, Patna, India.
Paediatr Anaesth. 2022 Jul;32(7):843-850. doi: 10.1111/pan.14447. Epub 2022 Apr 5.
Previous studies have shown Proseal LMA and I gel similar to endotracheal intubation in ventilatory ability in pediatric laparoscopic surgeries.
The primary aim of this study was to assess whether there is a significant difference in the oropharyngeal leak pressure between Ambu Auragrain, I-gel, and Proseal LMA during pediatric laparoscopic surgery.
In this randomized controlled trial, 90 male patients of American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I aged between 6 months and 10 years who were scheduled for laparoscopic single-sided inguinal hernia repair were recruited and randomly allocated to three groups in which airway was secured with Ambu Auragain, I gel, or Proseal LMA. The primary outcome was oropharyngeal leak pressure. The secondary outcomes were peak pressures before and after pneumoperitoneum, fiberoptic view, insertion attempts, insertion time, manipulations, perioperative and postoperative anesthesia-related problems. Continuous variables were compared using the one-way analysis of variance or the Kruskal-Wallis test with post hoc Turkey analysis. Categorical and ordinal data were compared using the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test.
Oropharyngeal leak pressure before pneumoperitoneum was higher with I gel as compared to Ambu Auragain (27.36 ± 5.72 cm of H O vs 23.56 ± 5.72 cm of H O) (p = .021) and PLMA (27.36 ± 5.72 cm of H O vs 23.24 ± 4.35 cm of H O) (p = .011). Oropharyngeal leak pressure after pneumoperitoneum was also higher with I gel as compared to Ambu Auragain (31.58 ± 4.35 cm of H O vs 26.83 ± 5.00 cm of H O) (p = .001) and Proseal LMA (31.58 ± 4.35 cm of H O vs 27.03 ± 3.80 cm of H O) (p = .002). Oropharyngeal leak pressures of Ambu Auragain and Proseal LMA were comparable. Postoperative complications were similar in all the supraglottic airway devices. No regurgitation or aspiration-related problem was observed in our study.
I gel had a higher oropharyngeal leak pressure than the other two supraglottic airway devices and therefore may represent a better choice in situations where higher ventilatory pressures may be necessary, for example, in extremes of weight trendelenburg position, etc. CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER: Clinical trial registry of India (CTRI/2018/11/016445).
先前的研究表明,在小儿腹腔镜手术中,Proseal LMA 和 I-gel 与气管内插管在通气能力方面相似。
本研究的主要目的是评估在小儿腹腔镜手术中,Ambu Auragrain、I-gel 和 Proseal LMA 之间的咽腔漏气压是否存在显著差异。
在这项随机对照试验中,我们招募了 90 名美国麻醉医师协会身体状况 I 级的男性患者,年龄在 6 个月至 10 岁之间,计划进行单侧腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术。将他们随机分配到三组,分别使用 Ambu Auragain、I-gel 或 Proseal LMA 来确保气道通畅。主要结局是咽腔漏气压。次要结局是气腹前后的峰值压力、纤维光学视野、插入尝试、插入时间、操作、围手术期和术后与麻醉相关的问题。连续变量采用单因素方差分析或 Kruskal-Wallis 检验,并用事后 Tukey 分析进行比较。分类和有序数据采用卡方检验或 Fisher 确切检验进行比较。
在气腹前,I-gel 的咽腔漏气压高于 Ambu Auragain(27.36±5.72cmH2O 比 23.56±5.72cmH2O)(p=0.021)和 Proseal LMA(27.36±5.72cmH2O 比 23.24±4.35cmH2O)(p=0.011)。气腹后,I-gel 的咽腔漏气压也高于 Ambu Auragain(31.58±4.35cmH2O 比 26.83±5.00cmH2O)(p=0.001)和 Proseal LMA(31.58±4.35cmH2O 比 27.03±3.80cmH2O)(p=0.002)。Ambu Auragain 和 Proseal LMA 的咽腔漏气压相似。所有声门上气道装置的术后并发症相似。在我们的研究中,没有观察到反流或吸入相关的问题。
I-gel 的咽腔漏气压高于其他两种声门上气道装置,因此在需要更高通气压力的情况下(例如极端的头低位、等),它可能是更好的选择。
印度临床试验注册中心(CTRI/2018/11/016445)。