Literature DB >> 27409643

Comparison of ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) with cuffed and uncuffed endotracheal tubes in infants.

Eyyup Sabri Ozden1, Basak Ceyda Meco, Zekeriyya Alanoglu, Neslihan Alkıs.   

Abstract

We aimed to compare cuffed and uncuffed endotracheal tubes (ETTs) with ProSealTM laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) in terms of airway security and extubation, starting out from the hypothesis that PLMA will provide alternative airway safety to the endotracheal tubes, and that airway complications will be less observed. After obtaining approval from the local Ethics Committee and parental informed consent, 120 pediatric patients 1-24 months old, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II, requiring general anesthesia for elective lower abdominal surgery, were randomized into PLMA (Group P, n = 40), cuffed ETT (Group C, n = 40), and uncuffed ETT (Group UC, n = 40) groups. The number of intubation or PLMA insertion attempts was recorded. Each patient's epigastrium was auscultated for gastric insufflation, leak volumes and air leak fractions (leak volume/inspiratory volume) were recorded. Post-operative adverse events related to airway management were also followed up during the first post-operative hour. Demographic and surgical data were similar among the groups. There were significantly fewer airway manipulations in the Group P than in the other groups (p < 0.01), and leak volume and air leak fractions were greater in the Group UC than in the other two groups (p < 0.01). Laryngospasm was significantly lower in the Group P during extubation and within the first minute of post-extubation than in the other groups (p < 0.01). Based on this study, PLMA may be a good alternative to cuffed and uncuffed ETTs for airway management of infants due to the ease of manipulation and lower incidence of laryngospasm.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27409643      PMCID: PMC5136765          DOI: 10.17305/bjbms.2016.1219

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bosn J Basic Med Sci        ISSN: 1512-8601            Impact factor:   3.363


  13 in total

1.  Comparison of cuffed, uncuffed tracheal tubes and laryngeal mask airways in low flow pressure controlled ventilation in children.

Authors:  Thomas Engelhardt; Graham Johnston; Manisha M Kumar
Journal:  Paediatr Anaesth       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 2.556

2.  Supraglottic airways in children: past lessons, future directions.

Authors:  Robin G Cox; David R Lardner
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  2009-07-02       Impact factor: 5.063

3.  The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in children.

Authors:  M Lopez-Gil; J Brimacombe
Journal:  Paediatr Anaesth       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.556

4.  Reliability of epigastric auscultation to detect gastric insufflation.

Authors:  J Brimacomb; C Keller; S Kurian; J Myles
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 9.166

5.  Comparison of cuffed and uncuffed endotracheal tubes in young children during general anesthesia.

Authors:  H H Khine; D H Corddry; R G Kettrick; T M Martin; J J McCloskey; J B Rose; M C Theroux; M Zagnoev
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 7.892

6.  Use of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway for pressure-controlled ventilation with and without positive end-expiratory pressure in paediatric patients: a randomized, controlled study.

Authors:  K Goldmann; C Roettger; H Wulf
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2005-09-30       Impact factor: 9.166

7.  Laryngeal mask airway vs. uncuffed endotracheal tube for nasal and paranasal sinus surgery: paediatric airway protection.

Authors:  Khalid A Al-Mazrou; Khalid M Abdullah; Mohamed S ElGammal; Riaz A Ansari; Ahmed Turkistani; Mohamed E Abdelmeguid
Journal:  Eur J Anaesthesiol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 4.330

8.  Prospective randomized controlled multi-centre trial of cuffed or uncuffed endotracheal tubes in small children.

Authors:  M Weiss; A Dullenkopf; J E Fischer; C Keller; A C Gerber
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2009-11-03       Impact factor: 9.166

9.  Laryngeal mask airway and tracheal tube cuff pressures in children: are clinical endpoints valuable for guiding inflation?

Authors:  M Ong; N A Chambers; B Hullet; T O Erb; B S von Ungern-Sternberg
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 6.955

10.  The laryngeal mask airway and positive-pressure ventilation.

Authors:  J H Devitt; R Wenstone; A G Noel; M P O'Donnell
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 7.892

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Cuffed versus uncuffed endotracheal tubes for neonates.

Authors:  Vedanta Dariya; Luca Moresco; Matteo Bruschettini; Luc P Brion
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2022-01-24

Review 2.  Laryngeal Masks in Neonatal Resuscitation-A Narrative Review of Updates 2022.

Authors:  Srinivasan Mani; Joaquim M B Pinheiro; Munmun Rawat
Journal:  Children (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-17

3.  Comparison of the Peak Inspiratory Pressure and Lung Dynamic Compliance between a Classic Laryngeal Mask Airway and an Endotracheal Tube in Children Under Mechanical Ventilation.

Authors:  Alireza Mahdavi; Seyed Sajad Razavi; Bita Malekianzadeh; Afsaneh Sadeghi
Journal:  Tanaffos       Date:  2017-06

4.  Effects of fascia iliaca compartment block combined with general laryngeal mask airway anesthesia in children undergoing femoral fracture surgery: a randomized trial.

Authors:  H Y Zhong; X B Deng; Z Wang
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2018-11-08       Impact factor: 3.133

5.  Cuffed Versus Uncuffed Endotracheal Tubes in Pediatrics: A Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Liang Chen; Jun Zhang; Guoshi Pan; Xia Li; Tianwu Shi; Wensheng He
Journal:  Open Med (Wars)       Date:  2018-09-08

6.  A comparison of laryngeal mask airway-supreme and endotracheal tube use with respect to airway protection in patients undergoing septoplasty: a randomized, single-blind, controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Erol Karaaslan; Sedat Akbas; Ahmet Selim Ozkan; Cemil Colak; Zekine Begec
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2021-01-07       Impact factor: 2.217

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.