Department of Anaesthesiology, Pain Medicine and Critical Care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Paediatr Anaesth. 2023 Jun;33(6):474-480. doi: 10.1111/pan.14653. Epub 2023 Mar 16.
Ambu AuraGain has proven to be better compared with other supraglottic airway devices in terms of higher first-attempt insertion success rate, time and ease of insertion, high oropharyngeal leak pressure, and fewer complications in children. The performance of the BlockBuster laryngeal mask has not been evaluated in children.
The primary objective of this study was to compare the oropharyngeal leak pressure of the BlockBuster laryngeal mask with those of the Ambu AuraGain during controlled ventilation in children.
Fifty children aged 6 months to 12 years with normal airways were randomized into group A (Ambu AuraGain) and group B (BlockBuster laryngeal mask). After administration of general anesthesia, an appropriate size supraglottic airway (size 1.5/2.0/2.5) was inserted according to the groups. Oropharyngeal leak pressure, success and ease of supraglottic airway insertion, gastric tube insertion, and ventilatory parameters were noted. The glottic view was graded by fiberoptic bronchoscopy.
Demographic parameters were comparable. The mean oropharyngeal leak pressure in the BlockBuster group (24.72 ± 6.81 cm H O) was significantly higher than Ambu AuraGain group (17.20 ± 4.28 cm H O) by 7.52 cm H O (95% CI 4.27 to 10.76; p = 0.001). The mean time for supraglottic airway insertion in the BlockBuster and Ambu AuraGain group was 12.04 ± 2.55 s and 13.64 ± 2.76 s, respectively (mean difference- 1.6 s, 95% CI 0.09-3.12; p = 0.04). Ventilatory parameters, first-attempt supraglottic airway insertion success rate, and ease of gastric tube insertion were comparable between the groups. The BlockBuster group showed easy supraglottic airway insertion compared with the Ambu AuraGain group. The BlockBuster group had better glottic views with only the larynx seen in 23 out of 25 children compared to the Ambu AuraGain with only the larynx seen in 19 out of 25 children. No complication was noted in either group.
We found that the BlockBuster laryngeal mask has higher oropharyngeal leak pressure compared with Ambu AuraGain in a pediatric population.
在儿童中,AuraGain 声门上气道装置在首次尝试插入成功率、插入时间和难易程度、较高的咽腔漏气压和较少的并发症方面均优于其他声门上气道装置。BlockBuster 喉罩在儿童中的性能尚未得到评估。
本研究的主要目的是比较 BlockBuster 喉罩和 Ambu AuraGain 在儿童控制通气期间的咽腔漏气压。
50 名年龄在 6 个月至 12 岁、气道正常的儿童随机分为 A 组(AuraGain)和 B 组(BlockBuster 喉罩)。全身麻醉后,根据组别插入合适大小的声门上气道(1.5/2.0/2.5 号)。记录咽腔漏气压、声门上气道插入的成功率和难易程度、胃管插入和通气参数。使用纤维支气管镜对声门可视度进行分级。
人口统计学参数具有可比性。BlockBuster 组的平均咽腔漏气压(24.72±6.81cmH2O)明显高于 Ambu AuraGain 组(17.20±4.28cmH2O),高 7.52cmH2O(95%置信区间 4.27 至 10.76;p=0.001)。BlockBuster 组和 Ambu AuraGain 组声门上气道插入的平均时间分别为 12.04±2.55s 和 13.64±2.76s(平均差值-1.6s,95%置信区间 0.09-3.12;p=0.04)。两组通气参数、首次尝试声门上气道插入成功率和胃管插入的难易程度相当。与 Ambu AuraGain 相比,BlockBuster 组的声门上气道插入更为容易。BlockBuster 组有 25 名儿童中有 23 名仅可见喉部,声门可视度较好,而 Ambu AuraGain 组有 25 名儿童中有 19 名仅可见喉部。两组均未发生并发症。
我们发现,在儿科人群中,与 Ambu AuraGain 相比,BlockBuster 喉罩的咽腔漏气压更高。