Comparison of the laryngeal mask (LMA™) and laryngeal tube (LT®) with the perilaryngeal airway (CobraPLA®) in brief paediatric surgical procedures

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorKaya, G.
dc.contributor.authorKoyuncu, O.
dc.contributor.authorTuran, N.
dc.contributor.authorTuran, A.
dc.date.accessioned2024-06-12T10:51:35Z
dc.date.available2024-06-12T10:51:35Z
dc.date.issued2008
dc.departmentTrakya Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractWe compared the laryngeal mask airway (LMA (TM)) and the laryngeal tube (LT (R)) with the perilaryngeal airway (CobraPLA (R), PLA) in anaesthetised, paralysed children having brief surgical procedures. After obtaining informed consent, 90 paediatric ASA Status 1 and 2 patients awaiting short surgical procedures were randomised to have their airways managed with an LMA, LT or PLA.,Anaesthesia was induced with sevofluarane (2.5 to 4%) and muscle paralysis with mivacurium (0.2 mg/kg intravenously). The number of insertion attempts, time taken to insert the device, haemodynamic responses to insertion (mean arterial blood pressure, heart rate, pulse oximetry and end-tidal CO), clinical performance and occurence of postoperative sore throat were recorded. When the airway device was removed, it was examined for visible blood. Patients and parents were asked about the occurrence of sore throat, dysphonia and dysphagia 24 hours postoperatively. Heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure, pulse oximetry and end tidal CO2 did not differ among the groups. Insertion times for the devices were similar (LMA: 19 +/- 11.seconds, LT: 21 +/- 12.seconds, PLA: 18 +/- 12 seconds), as were the rates of successful insertion at first attempt (LMA 66.7%; LT 70.0%; PLA 73.3%). The number and type of airway interventions to achieve at? affective airway were comparable. When the airways were removed, positive blood traces were noted on 20% of the LMAs, 20% of the PLAs and 10% of the LTs. Haemodynamic, ventilation and oxygenation variables throughout the surgery were similar with LMA, LT and PLA and there were no significant differences in insertion time or signs or symptoms of mucosal trauma when these devices were used in paralysed children.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0310057X0803600314
dc.identifier.endpage430en_US
dc.identifier.issn0310-057X
dc.identifier.issn1448-0271
dc.identifier.issue3en_US
dc.identifier.pmid18564805en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-44449161998en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2en_US
dc.identifier.startpage425en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1177/0310057X0803600314
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14551/18400
dc.identifier.volume36en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000260341000016en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ4en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherAustralian Soc Anaesthetistsen_US
dc.relation.ispartofAnaesthesia And Intensive Careen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectAnaesthesiaen_US
dc.subjectGeneralen_US
dc.subjectIntubation Intratrachealen_US
dc.subjectLaryngeal Masken_US
dc.subjectInsertionen_US
dc.subjectIntubationen_US
dc.subjectAnesthesiaen_US
dc.subjectDeviceen_US
dc.titleComparison of the laryngeal mask (LMA™) and laryngeal tube (LT®) with the perilaryngeal airway (CobraPLA®) in brief paediatric surgical proceduresen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu