Mohan Vidya, Rudingwa Priya, Panneerselvam Sakthirajan, Kuberan Aswini, Srinivasan Gnanasekaran, Arulprakasam Santhosh
Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India.
Indian J Anaesth. 2024 Jul;68(7):637-643. doi: 10.4103/ija.ija_1068_23. Epub 2024 Jun 7.
Postoperative sore throat (POST) can be as high as 42% in supraglottic devices. LMA® Protector™ is a novel second-generation laryngeal mask airway (LMA) with Cuff Pilot™ technology that allows continuous cuff pressure monitoring. Elevated cuff pressure is a risk factor for POST in supraglottic devices, so we conducted this study to determine whether continuous cuff pressure monitoring can alleviate POST.
This randomised double-blinded clinical trial compared the incidence of sore throat between LMA® Protector™ and LMA® ProSeal™ and was conducted in 118 patients scheduled for elective short surgical procedures. They were randomised to either LMA® Protector™ (Group PT) or LMA® ProSeal™ (Group P). The airway was secured with either of the two devices. The primary outcome was the incidence of sore throat at 1, 6, and 24 hours postoperatively and compared using the Chi-square test along with other parameters like first attempt success rate and blood staining of the device. The time taken for insertion and oropharyngeal seal pressure were compared using an independent -test.
The incidence of POST was low with Group PT (12%) compared to Group P (28.8%) ( = 0.005). The mean oropharyngeal seal pressure was significantly higher in Group PT than in Group P [33.72 (3.07) versus 27.72 (3.88) cm of HO], < 0.005. The first attempt success rate was 81.2% and 100% in LMA® Protector™ versus LMA® ProSeal™.
LMA® Protector™ had a reduced incidence of POST compared to LMA ProSeal. However, a longer insertion time and difficult placement may be a concern.
声门上装置术后咽痛(POST)发生率可高达42%。LMA® Protector™是一种采用Cuff Pilot™技术的新型第二代喉罩气道(LMA),可实现连续的套囊压力监测。套囊压力升高是声门上装置发生POST的一个危险因素,因此我们开展了本研究,以确定连续套囊压力监测能否减轻POST。
本随机双盲临床试验比较了LMA® Protector™与LMA® ProSeal™之间咽痛的发生率,研究对象为118例计划接受择期短期外科手术的患者。他们被随机分为LMA® Protector™组(PT组)或LMA® ProSeal™组(P组)。使用两种装置中的任何一种确保气道安全。主要结局指标为术后1小时、6小时和24小时咽痛的发生率,并使用卡方检验与其他参数(如首次尝试成功率和装置血染情况)进行比较。使用独立样本t检验比较插入时间和口咽密封压。
与P组(28.8%)相比,PT组的POST发生率较低(12%)(P = 0.005)。PT组的平均口咽密封压显著高于P组[33.72(3.07)对vs 27.72(3.88)cmH₂O],P < 0.005。LMA® Protector™与LMA® ProSeal™的首次尝试成功率分别为81.2%和100%。
与LMA ProSeal相比,LMA® Protector™的POST发生率较低。然而,插入时间较长和放置困难可能是一个问题。