Literature DB >> 27366519

Comparison of Four Different Supraglottic Airway Devices in Terms of Efficacy, Intra-ocular Pressure and Haemodynamic Parameters in Children Undergoing Ophthalmic Surgery.

Gökhan Peker1, Suna Akın Takmaz1, Bülent Baltacı1, Hülya Başar1, Mustafa Kotanoğlu1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare insertion parameters of four different types of supraglottic airway devices (SGAD) (Classic LMA, I-gel LMA, Proseal LMA, Cobra PLA) in children undergoing ophthalmic surgery and to determine the effect on intra-ocular pressure (IOP) and haemodynamic responses during insertion.
METHODS: Sixty American society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-II children aged 1-10 years undergoing extra-ocular ophthalmic surgery were randomly divided into four groups (Group LMA, Group I-gel LMA, Group PLMA and Group CPLA) in this prospective, randomised study. Anaesthesia was induced with decreasing sevoflurane concentrations (8%-2%) in a mixture of 50% N2O-O2. All SGADs were inserted under deep anaesthesia. The characteristics of insertion (number of attempts, ease and time), oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) and complications were recorded. IOP in both eyes, heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP) and EtCO2 were measured before and 2 and 5 min after insertion of the SGADs.
RESULTS: There was no difference between the groups in terms of the characteristics of insertion. The mean IOP did not increase significantly in all groups. MAP and HR changes were similar among the groups during follow-up. In all groups, HR increased 2 min after insertion (statistically insignificant) and returned to the baseline value 5 min after insertion. A statistically significant correlation was seen between HR increase and IOP values before and after insertion of the SGADs (p=0.006, correlation coefficient=0.352). Desaturation was seen in one patient in Groups LMA, PLMA and CPLA, and laryngospasm was seen in two patients in Group CPLA and in one patient in Group LMA.
CONCLUSION: It was seen that during insertion of Classic LMA, I-gel LMA, Proseal LMA and Cobra PLA, IOP did not increase and haemodynamic stability was maintained in children undergoing extra-ocular ophthalmic surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Laryngeal mask; haemodynamics; intra-ocular pressure

Year:  2015        PMID: 27366519      PMCID: PMC4894230          DOI: 10.5152/TJAR.2015.49091

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim        ISSN: 2149-276X


  25 in total

1.  Insertion of laryngeal mask airway does not increase the intraocular pressure in children with glaucoma.

Authors:  Neerja Bhardwaj; Sandhya Yaddanapudi; Swati Singh; Surinder S Pandav
Journal:  Paediatr Anaesth       Date:  2011-08-12       Impact factor: 2.556

2.  Comparison of the laryngeal mask (LMA) and laryngeal tube (LT) with the new perilaryngeal airway (CobraPLA) in short surgical procedures.

Authors:  A Turan; G Kaya; O Koyuncu; B Karamanlioglu; Z Pamukçu
Journal:  Eur J Anaesthesiol       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 4.330

3.  Evaluation of the i-gel airway in 300 patients.

Authors:  O A Bamgbade; W R Macnab; W M Khalaf
Journal:  Eur J Anaesthesiol       Date:  2008-06-06       Impact factor: 4.330

4.  A comparison of the i-gel with the LMA-Unique in non-paralysed anaesthetised adult patients.

Authors:  H Francksen; J Renner; R Hanss; J Scholz; V Doerges; B Bein
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 6.955

5.  Intraocular pressure and haemodynamic responses to insertion of the i-gel, laryngeal mask airway or endotracheal tube.

Authors:  Salah A Ismail; Neama A Bisher; Hazem W Kandil; Hany A Mowafi; Hayam A Atawia
Journal:  Eur J Anaesthesiol       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.330

6.  Intra-ocular pressure and haemodynamic changes after tracheal intubation and extubation: a comparative study in glaucomatous and nonglaucomatous children.

Authors:  R Madan; P Tamilselvan; S Sadhasivam; D Shende; V Gupta; H L Kaul
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 6.955

7.  Comparison of laryngeal mask airway with tracheal tube for ophthalmic surgery in paediatric patients.

Authors:  M Gulati; M Mohta; S Ahuja; V P Gupta
Journal:  Anaesth Intensive Care       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 1.669

8.  Intra-ocular pressure changes during induction of anaesthesia and tracheal intubation. A comparison of thiopentone and propofol followed by vecuronium.

Authors:  R K Mirakhur; P Elliott; W F Shepherd; D B Archer
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  1988-03       Impact factor: 6.955

9.  The effect of laryngeal mask airway insertion on intraocular pressure measurement in children receiving general anesthesia.

Authors:  Patrick Watts; May Kim Lim; Ravikiran Gandhewar; Aychut Mukherjee; Richard Wintle; Trevor Armstrong; Tahsin Zatman; Rhys Jones; Hasan Al Madfai
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2007-08-08       Impact factor: 5.258

10.  Comparison of the LMA-ProSeal and LMA-Classic in children.

Authors:  H Shimbori; K Ono; T Miwa; N Morimura; M Noguchi; K Hiroki
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2004-08-06       Impact factor: 9.166

View more
  4 in total

1.  Supraglottic Airway Devices: the Search for the Best Insertion Technique or the Time to Change Our Point of View?

Authors:  Massimiliano Sorbello; Flavia Petrini
Journal:  Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim       Date:  2017-04-01

2.  Cobra-PLA provides higher oropharyngeal leak pressure than LMA-Classic and LMA-Unique: A meta-analysis with 22 studies.

Authors:  Yuan Tan; Guangyou Duan; Qin Chen; Feng Chen; Hong Li
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 1.817

3.  Effect of airway device and depth of anesthesia on intra-ocular pressure measurement during general anesthesia in children: A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Vanlal Darlong; Ramkumar Kalaiyarasan; Dalim K Baidya; Ravindra Pandey; Renu Sinha; Jyotsna Punj; Tanuj Dada
Journal:  J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2021-07-15

4.  Ambu AuraOnce versus i-gel laryngeal mask airway in infants and children undergoing surgical procedures. A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Abdulrahman M Alzahem; Mansoor Aqil; Tariq A Alzahrani; Ayman H Aljazaeri
Journal:  Saudi Med J       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 1.484

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.