| Literature DB >> 21224972 |
Jaya Lalwani1, Kamta Prasad Dubey, Bal Swaroop Sahu, Pratibha Jain Shah.
Abstract
The laryngeal mask airway (LMA) is a supraglottic airway management device. The LMA is preferred for airway management in paediatric patients for short duration surgical procedures. The recently introduced ProSeal (PLMA), a modification of Classic LMA, has a gastric drainage tube placed lateral to main airway tube which allows the regurgitated gastric contents to bypass the glottis and prevents the pulmonary aspiration. This study was done to compare the efficacy of ProSeal LMA with an endotracheal tube in paediatric patients with respect to number of attempts for placement of devices, haemodynamic responses and perioperative respiratory complications. Sixty children, ASA I and II, weighing 10-20 kg between 2 and 8 years of age group of either sex undergoing elective ophthalmological and lower abdominal surgeries of 30-60 min duration, randomly divided into two groups of 30 patients each were studied. The number of attempts for endotracheal intubation was less than the placement of PLMA. Haemodynamic responses were significantly higher (P<0.05) after endotracheal intubation as compared to the placement of PLMA. There were no significant differences in mean SpO(2) (%) and EtCO(2) levels recorded at different time intervals between the two groups. The incidence of post-operative respiratory complications cough and bronchospasm was higher after extubation than after removal of PLMA. The incidence of soft tissue trauma was noted to be higher for PLMA after its removal. There were no incidences of aspiration and hoarseness/sore throat in either group. It is concluded that ProSeal LMA can be safely considered as a suitable and effective alternative to endotracheal intubation in paediatric patients for short duration surgical procedures.Entities:
Keywords: ET tube; PLMA; haemodynamic response
Year: 2010 PMID: 21224972 PMCID: PMC3016575 DOI: 10.4103/0019-5049.72644
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Indian J Anaesth ISSN: 0019-5049
Figure 1Demographic profile of patients
Number of attempts at insertion
| Author | Attempts | Group PLMA (%) | Group ETT (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self | 1st | 83.33 | 96.67 |
| Sinha | 1st | 88 | 100 |
| Misra | 1st | 88 | 100 |
| Dave | 1st | 93.33 | - |
| Lim | 1st | 86 | 86 |
PLMA: ProSeal laryngeal mask airway
Comparison of mean pulse rate (beats/min) (Mean±S.D.)
| Group | Base line | Just after insertion | 5 min | 10 min |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A (PLMA) | 102.70±11.56 | 109.50±12.41 | 103.56±11.18 | 99.96±13.15 |
| <0.05 | >0.05 | >0.05 | ||
| B (ET tube) | 102.46±11.46 | 122.83±8.30 | 113.00±14.94 | 110.26±15.68 |
| <0.05 | <0.01 | <0.05 |
PLMA: ProSeal laryngeal mask airway
Comparison of mean blood pressure (mm Hg) (Mean±S.D.)
| Group | Base line | Just after insertion | 5 min | 10 min |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A (PLMA) | 79.76±9.95 | 79.86±9.36 | 71.66±9.62 | 69.93±8.25 |
| >0.05 | <0.05 | <0.01 | ||
| B (ET tube) | 75.51±12.79 | 77.46±14.39 | 67.43±11.27 | 73.10±12.62 |
| >0.05 | <0.05 | >0.05 |
PLMA: ProSeal laryngeal mask airway, ET: Endotracheal tube
Perioperative complications
| Complications | Group A (PLMA) | Group B (ET tube) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | % | No. | % | |
| Cough | 2 | 6.6 | 9 | 30 |
| Laryngospasm | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Bronchospasm | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6.6 |
| Blood on device | 6 | 20 | 2 | 6.6 |
| Aspiration | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Hoarseness/sore throat | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
PLMA: ProSeal laryngeal mask airway, ET: Endotracheal tube