AIM: We aimed to compare the effects of three different supraglottic airway devices, the classic LMA, PLA, and V-gel, on hemodynamics and QTc in rabbits under general anesthesia. METHOD: The rabbits were divided into four groups: Group C (n=5) control group with no airway device used, Group L (n=5, classic LMA), Group P (n=5, CobraPLA) and Group V (n=5, V-gel-rabbit). Basal values of heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP) and ECG for QTc interval were measured and the measurements were evaluated at 1, 5, 15, and 30 minutes after inserting the airway device RESULTS: The values of HR, MAP and QTc in Group V at minutes 1 and 5 were significantly different to those in Group L and Group P (p<0.05). DISCUSSION: The classic-LMA and cobraPLA cover a wide part of the perilaryngeal area with cuffs inflated to about 60 cmH2O of pressure resulting in mucosal compression. As V-gel rabbit does not have a cuff, it covers a smaller part of the laryngopharyngeal area, and thus does not cause mucosal compression, and the hemodynamic response is weaker. CONCLUSION: When comparing hemodynamic responses to other supraglottic airway devices, the response to V-gel rabbit is minimal and we consider that similar studies using the I-gel on humans are required (Fig. 5, Ref. 31).
AIM: We aimed to compare the effects of three different supraglottic airway devices, the classic LMA, PLA, and V-gel, on hemodynamics and QTc in rabbits under general anesthesia. METHOD: The rabbits were divided into four groups: Group C (n=5) control group with no airway device used, Group L (n=5, classic LMA), Group P (n=5, CobraPLA) and Group V (n=5, V-gel-rabbit). Basal values of heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP) and ECG for QTc interval were measured and the measurements were evaluated at 1, 5, 15, and 30 minutes after inserting the airway device RESULTS: The values of HR, MAP and QTc in Group V at minutes 1 and 5 were significantly different to those in Group L and Group P (p<0.05). DISCUSSION: The classic-LMA and cobraPLA cover a wide part of the perilaryngeal area with cuffs inflated to about 60 cmH2O of pressure resulting in mucosal compression. As V-gel rabbit does not have a cuff, it covers a smaller part of the laryngopharyngeal area, and thus does not cause mucosal compression, and the hemodynamic response is weaker. CONCLUSION: When comparing hemodynamic responses to other supraglottic airway devices, the response to V-gel rabbit is minimal and we consider that similar studies using the I-gel on humans are required (Fig. 5, Ref. 31).