PROSEAL LARYNGEAL MASK AIRWAY VERSUS CLASSIC LARYNGEAL MASK AIRWAY FOR AIRWAY MANAGEMENT IN BURN NECROSIS AND SKIN GRAFTING SURGERY
Nội dung chính của bài viết
Tóm tắt
Objectives: To compare the efficiency of the classic laryngeal mask airway (c-LMA) and the proseal laryngeal mask airway (p-LMA) in patients with indications for burn necrosis and skin grafting surgery. Methods: A clinical descriptive, randomized comparison study was conducted on 60 patients divided into two groups: p-LMA (30 patients) and c-LMA (30 patients) were anesthetized with p-LMA and c-LMA, respectively. Accessing and comparing the ease of placement, respiratory function, and hemodynamic response, and the degree of airway injury after surgery between two groups. Results: 100% patients were successfully inserted laryngeal mask airway (LMA) with insertion time of 22.14 seconds and 20.56 seconds, respectively (p > 0.05); oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) was 28.56 cmH2O (p-LMA) and 19.66 cmH2O (c-LMA) (p < 0.05); hemodynamic and respiratory function during surgery were maintained in normal range and there was no difference between the two groups (p > 0.05), and no airway complications related to insertion technique (sore throat, hoarseness, or blood staining) were found in either group. Conclusion: Both LMAs are useful for managing airways in burn necrosis and skin grafting procedures. Both kinds of masks are simple to put on, do not significantly alter hemodynamic response or respiratory function, and patients recover safely from LMA placement without any problems.
Chi tiết bài viết
Từ khóa
Laryngeal mask airway, Proseal laryngeal mask airway, Classic laryngeal mask airway, Burn necrosis and skin grafting
Tài liệu tham khảo
2. Qamarul Hoda M, Samad K, Ullah H. ProSeal versus Classic laryngeal mask airway (LMA) for positive pressure ventilation in adults undergoing elective surgery (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017.
3. H Shimbori, K Ono, T Miwa, N Morimura. Comparison of the LMA-ProSealTM and LMA-ClassicTM in children. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2024; 93(4):528-531.
4. C Keller, JR Brimacombe, K Keller, R Morris. Comparison of four methods for assessing airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in adult patients. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 1999; 82(2):286-287.
5. Joseph Brimacombe, Christian Keller, Bernd Fullekrug, Felice Agrò, William Rosenblatt, Stephen F Dierdorf, Elvira Garcia de Lucas, Xavier Capdevilla, Nick Brimacombe. A multicenter study comparing the ProSeal TMand classic TMLaryngeal mask airway in anesthetized, nonparalyzed patients. Anesthesiology. 2002; 96:289-295.
6. Pham Quang Minh, Nguyen Xuan Anh. To access some advertising effects of ProSeal laryngeal mask in patients undergoing percutaneous renal lithotripsy surgery. Vietnam Medical Journal. 2022; 1:73-77.
7. Belena JM, Nunez M. The laryngeal mask airway Supreme™: Safety and efficacy during gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. South Afr J Anaesth Analg. 2012; 18(3):143-147.
8. A Coulson, J Brimacombe, C Keller, L Wiseman, T Ingham, D Cheung, L Popwycz, B Hall. A comparison of the ProSeal and Classic laryngeal mask airways for airway management by inexperienced personnel after manikin-only training. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2003; 3:286-289.
9. PP Lu, J Brimacombe, C Yang, M Shyr. ProSeal versus the Classic laryngeal mask airway for positive pressure ventilation during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2002; 88(6):824-827.
10. Hye Won Shin, Hae Na Yoo, Go Eun Bae, Jun Chul Chang, Min Kyung Park, Hae Seun You, Hyun Jung Kim, Hyung Sik Ahn. Comparison of oropharyngeal leak pressure and clinical performance of LMA ProSealTM and i-gel in adults: Meta-analysis and systematic review. Journal of International Medical Research. 2016; 44(3):405-418.