Comparative study between LMA-Proseal™ and Air-Q® Blocker for ventilation in adult eye trauma patients | ||||
| Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia | ||||
| Volume 30, Issue 3, July 2014, Page 227-233 PDF (1.02 MB) | ||||
| DOI: 10.1016/j.egja.2014.01.009 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| Maha M.I. Youssef; Mona Lofty; Yahya Hammad; Ezzat Elmenshawy | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Background The disposable Air-Q® Blocker Masked Laryngeal Airway (MLA) is a new supraglottic device used for intubation, rescue ventilation, and for esophageal suctioning. Laryngeal Mask Airway-Proseal™ is a well known supraglottic device in clinical practice. The aim of the study was to compare Air-Q® Blocker against LMA-Proseal™ as supraglottic devices for ventilation. Methods Sixty adult healthy patients scheduled for eye trauma surgeries under general anesthesia were randomly allocated into 2 groups; Group A ( = 30), where Air-Q® Blocker is used, Group P ( = 30), where LMA-Proseal™ is used. The success rate and time of their insertion were measured. Laryngeal view grading was assessed by fiberoptic bronchoscope. Ease of gastric tube placement and any post-operative complications (airway edema, sore throat or hoarseness) were also measured. Stress response of device insertion was measured using the vital sign measurements. Results Success of insertion at 1st attempt was (90%) in Group A and (83.3%) in Group P. Insertion time was 18.37 ± 3.77 s in Group (A), while 23.43 ± 3.54 s in Group P, ( < 0.001). Airway seal pressure was comparable in both groups. Full view of vocal cords amounted to (76.7%) in Group A, and (56.7%) in Group P respectively. 1st Attempt Gastric Tube Insertion was (93.3%) in Group A, and (83.3%) in Group P. comparison of previous data in both groups showed no statistical significant differences between them. The incidence of postoperative complications and post insertion hemodynamic stress response was statistically nonsignificant when compared between the 2 groups. Conclusion The Air-Q® Blocker demonstrated to be remarkably good as a ventilatory device, with adequate airway seal pressure, and improved facilitation of gastric tube insertion compared to LMA-Proseal™. Minimal pressor response was achieved after insertion with no statistical significance. | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 39 PDF Download: 16 |
||||
