medigraphic.com
ISSN 1726-6718 (Electronic)
Revista Cubana de Anestesiología y Reanimación

2014, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Revista Cubana de Anestesiología y Reanimación 2014; 13 (1)

Larynx mask I Gel vs ProSeal in breast oncological surgery

Rodríguez RC, Bermúdez BSM, Cordero EI, Abela LA

Language: Spanish
References: 54
Page: 15-30
PDF size: 286.34 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: the supraglottic devises were initiallly used only for the respiratory via boarding anatomically diffcult. Today, anesthesiologists arrange different supraglottic for the respiratory via boarding.
Objective: to characterize comparatively the performances of the larynx masks I Gel and ProSeal in the boarding of the air passage in patients subject to procedures of breast oncological surgery.
Methods: a case control prospective control study blind was carried out at "Hermanos Ameijeiras" Hospital during the period from September 2009 to April 2012.200 subjects intervened were studied with procedures of ontological breast surgery under general balanced anesthesia at random with equal parts in each group.
Results: both groups searched presented similar statistics as to age, body weight, physical condition and surgical time. The time of insertion of the mask in the study was significantly inferior to the control group. The average values of P1 and the volume of escape were significantly higher in the control group in each of the moments analyzed. The average values of the PAM and the FC belonging to study and control groups were revealed without significant statistical differences. The only postoperative immediate complication with significant difference outcome for the groups were light swallowing which was absent in the study group.
Conclusion: the performance of the larynx mask I Gel was significantly higher than the larynx mask ProSeal.


REFERENCES

  1. Covarrubias A, Martínez JL, Reynada JL. Actualidades en la vía aérea difícil. Rev Mex Anest 2004; 27:210-218.

  2. Peterson GN, Domino KB, Caplan RA, Posner KL, Lee LA, Cheney FW. Management of the difficult airway: a closed claims analysis. Anesthesiology 2005;103(1):33-9.

  3. Jakobsson J. Anaesthesia for day surgery: A concept built on safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2006; 19(6): 591.

  4. Miller DM. A proposed classification and scoring system for Supraglottic Sealing Airways: A brief review. Anesth & Analg 2004; 99: 1553-9.

  5. Bailey CR. Advances in airway management for outpatients. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2002; 15(6): 627-633.

  6. Verghese C, Brimacombe JR. Survey of laryngeal mask airway usage in 11,910 patients: Safety and efficacy for conventional and nonconventional usage. Anesth & Analg 1996; 82(1): 129-133.

  7. Viñoles J, García-Aguado R, Soliveres J. Encuesta sobre la utilización de la máscara laríngea en CMA y en corta estancia. Cir May Ambul 2003; 8 Supl 1: 15-21.

  8. Brimacombe J. Analysis of 1500 laryngeal mask uses by one anaesthetist in adults undergoing routine anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 1996; 51(7): 76-80.

  9. Silk J, Hill HM, Calder I. Difficult intubation and the laryngeal mask. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 1991 :(supp) 4; 47- 51.

  10. Heath M L, Allagain J. Intubation through the laryngeal mask. A technique for unexpected difficult intubation. Anaesthesia 1991: 46; 546- 548.

  11. Lange M, Smul T, Zimmermann P, Kohlenberger R, Roewer N, Kehl F. The effectiveness and patient comfort of the novel Streamlined Pharynx Airway Liner (SLIPA). Compared with the Conventional Laryngeal Mask Airway in Ophthalmic Surgery. Anesth & Analg 2007; 104 (2): 431.

  12. Gaitini L, Yanovski B, Somri M, Vaida S, Riad T, Alfery D. A Comparison between the PLA Cobra TM and the Laryngeal Mask Airway Unique TM during spontaneous ventilation: A Randomized prospective study. Anesth & Analg 2007; 104 (2): 431.

  13. Akça O, Wadhwa A, Sengupta P, Durrani J, Hanni K, Wenke M, Yücel Y, Lenhardt R, Doufas AG, Sessler DI. The new perilaryngeal airway (CobraPLA) is as efficient as the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) but provides better airway sealing pressures. Anesth Analg 2004; 99(1):272-8.

  14. Lee JJ, Kim JA, Gwak MS, Kim MH. Evaluation of the Cobra perilaryngeal airway (CPLA) as an airway conduit. Eur J Anaesth 2007; 24:10.

  15. Szmuk P, Ezri T, Narwani A, Alfery DD. Use of CobraPLA as a conduit for fiberoptic intubation in a child with neck instability. Pediatric Anesthesia 2006; 16(2): 2178.

  16. Khan RM, Maroof M, Johri A, Ashraf M, Jain D. Cobra PLA can overcome LMA failure in patients with face and neck contractures. Anaesthesia 2006; 62: 213222.

  17. Szmuk P, Ezri T, AkÇa O, Alfery DD. Use of a new supraglottic airway device the CobraPLA in a difficult to intubate/difficult to ventilate scenario. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2005; 49 (3): 421423.

  18. Passariello M, Almenrader N, Coccetti B, Haiberger R, Pietropaoli P. Insertion characteristics, sealing pressure and fiberoptic positioning of CobraPLA in children. Pediatric Anesthesia 2007; 17(10): 977982.

  19. Andrew A J, van Zundert C, Fonck K, Al-Shaikh B, Mortier E. Comparison of the LMA-Classic? With the New Disposable Soft Seal Laryngeal Mask in spontaneously Breathing Adult Patients. Anesthesiology 2003; 99:51.

  20. Francksen H, Bein B, Cavus E, Renner J, Scholz J, Steinfath M, Tonner P H, Doerges V. Comparison of LMA Unique, Ambu laryngeal mask and Soft Seal laryngeal mask during routine surgical procedures. Europ J Anaesth 2007; 24 (2):134.

  21. Shafik MT, Bahlman BU, Hall JE, Ali MS. A comparison of the Soft Seal disposable and the Classic re-usable laryngeal mask airway. Anaesthesia 2006; 61(2): 178181.

  22. Levitan RM, Kinkle WC. Initial anatomic investigations of the I-gel airway: a novel supraglottic airway without inflatable cuff. Anaesthesia 2005; 60:1022-6.

  23. Richez B, Saltel L, Banchereau F, Torrielli R, Cros AM. A New Single Use Supraglottic Airway Device with a Noninflatable Cuff and an Esophageal Vent: An Observational Study of the I-Gel. Anesth & Analg 2008; 106:1137-9.

  24. Janakiraman C, Chethan DB, Wilkes AR, Stacey MR, Goodwin N. A randomised crossover trial comparing the I-gel supraglottic airway and classic laryngeal mask airway. Anaesthesia 2009; 64: 674-8.

  25. Rowley E, Dingwall R. The use of single-use devices in anaesthesia: balancing the risks to patient safety. Anaesthesia 2007; 62(6): 569574.

  26. Silva LC. Excursión a la regresión logística en ciencias de la salud. Madrid: Díaz de Santos Ed. 1993. pp. 67-81.

  27. Zaballos García M, López Álvarez S, Agustí Martínez-Arcos S, et al. Recomendaciones prácticas de uso de la mascarilla laríngea en cirugía ambulatoria. 2da ed. España: ASECMA 2010. pp. 11.

  28. Brain AI, Verghese C, Strube PJ. The LMA `ProSeal' -a laryngeal mask with an oesophageal vent. Br J Anaesth 2000; 84: 650-4.

  29. Cook TM, Lee G, Nolan JP. The ProSeal TM laryngeal mask airway: a review of the literature. Can J Anesth 2005; 52: 739-60.

  30. Brimacombe J, Keller C. The Pro-Seal laryngeal mask airway. A randomized crossover study with the standard laryngeal mask airway in paralyzed anesthetized patients. Anesthesiology 2000; 93:104-9.

  31. Cook TM, Nolan JP, Verghese C. A randomised crossover comparison of the ProSeal with the classic laryngeal mask airway in unparalysed anaesthetised patients. Br J Anaesth 2002; 88: 527-33.

  32. Guzmán J. Mascara laríngea ProSeal. Rev Chil Anest 2009; 38: 107-113.

  33. Mathers CD, Loncar D. Projections of Global Mortality and Burden of Disease from 2002 to 2030. PLoS Med open-access journal in Internet. En línea. Consultado: Enero 11, 12. URL disponible en: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0030442 .

  34. Bray F, Moller B. Predicting the future burden of cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2006;6(1):63-74.

  35. Sosa NA, Pérez SL, Rendón ME. La utilidad de la mascarilla laríngea en comparación con el tubo endotraqueal en anestesia para mastectomía. Rev Mex Anest 2009; 32(1): 26-33.

  36. Bamgbade OA, Macnab WR, Khalaf WM: Evaluation of the i-gel airway in 300 patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2008; 25(10):865-6.

  37. Wharton NM, Gibbison B, Gabbott DA, Haslam GM, Muchatuta N, Cook TM: I-gel insertion by novices in manikins and patients. Anaesthesia 2008; 63(9):991-5.

  38. Jackson KM, Cook TM. Evaluation of four airway training manikins as patient simulators for the insertion of eight types of supraglottic airway devices: Anaesthesia 2007; 62(4):388- 93.

  39. Schmidbauer W, Bercker S, Volk T, Bogusch G, Mager G, Kerner T: Oesophageal seal of the novel supralaryngeal airway device i-gel in comparison with the laryngeal mask airways Classic and ProSeal using a cadaver model: Br J Anaesth 2009; 102(1):135-9.

  40. Singh I, Gupta M, Tandon M: Comparison of clinical performance of i-gel with LMA-Proseal in Elective surgeries. Ind J Anaesth 2009; 53(3): 302-305.

  41. Beylacq L, Bordes M, Semjen F, AM Cros. The i-gel, a single use supraglottic airway device with a noninflatable cuff and an esophageal vent: an observational study in children: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2009;53: 376379.

  42. Gatward JJ, Thomas MJC, Nolan JP, Cook TM: Effect of chest compressions on the time taken to insert airway devices in a manikin: Br J Anaesth 2008; 100(3):351-6.

  43. Gabbott DA, Beringer R: The i-gel supraglottic airway: A potential role for resuscitation? Resuscitation 2007; 73(1):161-2.

  44. Soar J: The i-gel supraglottic airway and resuscitation - some initial thoughts: Resuscitation 2007; 74(1):197.

  45. Joshi NA, Baird M, Cook TM. Use of an i-gel for airway rescue; Anaesthesia 2008; 63(9):1020-1.

  46. Wiese CHR, Bahr J, Popov AF, Hinz JM, Graf BM: Influence of airway management strategy on `noflow-time' in a standardized single rescuer manikin scenario (a comparison between LTS-D and i-gel).Resuscitation 2009, 80: 100-103.

  47. Wiese CHR, Bahr J, Popov AF, Hinz JM, Graf BM: Influence of airway management strategy on `noflow-time' in a standardized single rescuer manikin scenario (a comparison between LTS-D and i-gel).Resuscitation 2009, 80: 100-103.

  48. Gatward JJ, Cook TM, Seller C, Handel J, Simpson T, Vanek V, Kelly F: Evaluation of the size 4 I-gel airway in one hundred non-paralysed patients: Anaesthesia 2008; 63(10):1124-30.

  49. Gatward JJ, Cook TM, Seller C, Handel J, Simpson T, Vanek V, Kelly F: Evaluation of the size 4 I-gel airway in one hundred non-paralysed patients: Anaesthesia 2008; 63(10):1124-30.

  50. Nolan JP, Soar J: Airway techniques and ventilation strategies. Current Opinion Critical Care 2008; 14(3):279-86.

  51. Uppal V, Fletcher G, Kinsella J. Comparison of the i-gel with the cuffed tracheal tube during pressure controlled ventilation: British Journal of Anaesthesia 2009; 102 (2): 2648.

  52. Lloyd de L, Hodzovic I, Voisey S, Wilkes AR, Latto IP: Comparison of fibreoptic guided intubation via the classic laryngeal mask airway and i-gel in a manikin. Anaesthesia 2010; 65: 26-43.

  53. Theiler LG, Kleine-Brueggeney M, Kaiser D, Urwyler N, Luyet C, Vogt A, Greif R, Unibe MME: Crossover comparison of the Laryngeal Mask Supreme and the i-gel in simulated difficult airway scenario in anesthetised patients. Anesthesiology 2009; 111: 55-62.

  54. Francksen H, Renner J, Hanss R, Scholz J, Doerges V, Bein B: A comparison of the i-gel with the LMA Unique in non-paralysed anaesthetised adult patients. Anaesthesia 2009; 64: 1118- 24.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com