These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The Comparison Between Supreme Laryngeal Mask Airway and Endotracheal Tube With Respect to Adequacy of Ventilation in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Under General Anesthesia-A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Study, and Comparative Study.
    Author: Bhushan D, Nandkumar S, Butani M.
    Journal: Asian J Anesthesiol; 2022 Mar 01; 60():. PubMed ID: 35279972.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a commonly performed surgical procedure. Most anesthesiologists advocate tracheal intubation. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is becoming a day care surgery, hence many anaesthesiologists have started using laryngeal masks to decrease airway manipulation seen with conventional laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation and avoid hemodynamic pressor responses and postoperative sore throat. The Supreme laryngeal mask airway (LMA) is an innovative, sterile, single use, supraglottic airway management device which provides access to and functional separation of the respiratory and digestive tracts. In this study, there are two objectives-(1) primary objective: to assess the adequacy of ventilation when using LMA-Supreme^(TM) (LMA-S) and endotracheal tube (ETT), and (2) secondary objective: the first is to give the time for achieving effective airway and number of attempts for securing airway. The second is to assess haemodynamic parameters (heart rate and blood pressure). The last is to show the incidence of gastric distension, regurgitation and postoperative sore throat. METHODS: A total of 132 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-II patients were randomly assigned to LMA-S and ETT for intraoperative ventilation. After induction of general anaesthesia, the device was inserted, correct placement was checked, and parameters were recorded. SPSS version 20.0 software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) was used for statistical analysis. A P-value less than 0.05 is statistically significant. RESULTS: Ventilatory parameters such as inspiratory and expiratory leak volumes, and peak airway pressure values were comparable between the groups throughout the entire time interval. The number of attempts for successful insertion were comparable, but the mean time required for achieving effective airway was significantly longer in ETT than LMA-S (25.2 ± 8.3 sec vs. 18.6 ± 5.1 sec, respectively [P ＜ 0.05]). There was no situation in which the patient from the LMA-S group had to be intubated. The haemodynamic responses to insertion, pneumoperitoneum inflation and deflation, and removal of the device were greater for the ETT than the LMA-S. There were no complications like gastric distension or regurgitation in either groups. The postoperative sore throat at 2 hours and 24 hours was significantly lower in group LMA-S than group ETT. CONCLUSIONS: Positive pressure ventilation with a correctly placed LMA-S allows adequate pulmonary ventilation, without the untoward hemodynamic and postoperative adverse effects of endotracheal intubation, in laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]