We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparison of weight-based and pinna size-based selection of ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in paediatric population - A prospective exploratory trial.
Indian Journal of Anaesthesia 2019 January
Background and Aims: Weight-based selection of ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) size may be unreliable in some situations. The aim of this study was to compare the ventilation parameters using PLMA during controlled ventilation between weight-based size selection and pinna size-based selection in children.
Methods: A total of 204 patients were randomised to receive either pinna size-based (Group P) or weight-based (Group W) size selection of PLMA. We tested the hypothesis that pinna size-based selection of PLMA was better than weight-based selection of PLMA in paediatric patients during controlled ventilation under general anaesthesia in terms of oropharyngeal sealing pressure (the primary end-point) and Brimacombe score. Cuff pressure was maintained at 60 cm of H2 O during the study. Secondary outcomes included the number of attempts for successful placement of PLMA, peak airway pressure, gastric tube placement, traumatic insertion, and complications were also compared. Parametric variables were analysed using unpaired t -test and categorical variables were analysed using Mann-Whitney and Chi-square test.
Results: In all, 200 patients were analysed. The mean oropharyngeal sealing pressure in Group P was 25.4 ± 3.5 cmH2 O and 24.9 ± 3.8 cmH2 O in Group W, ( P = 0.34). There was no significant difference between the two groups in any of the secondary outcomes. There were no traumatic insertion or complications reported in both the groups.
Conclusion: Pinna-based size selection method can be used in PLMA placement in the paediatric population for positive pressure ventilation and it serves as an alternative method to weight-based selection.
Methods: A total of 204 patients were randomised to receive either pinna size-based (Group P) or weight-based (Group W) size selection of PLMA. We tested the hypothesis that pinna size-based selection of PLMA was better than weight-based selection of PLMA in paediatric patients during controlled ventilation under general anaesthesia in terms of oropharyngeal sealing pressure (the primary end-point) and Brimacombe score. Cuff pressure was maintained at 60 cm of H2 O during the study. Secondary outcomes included the number of attempts for successful placement of PLMA, peak airway pressure, gastric tube placement, traumatic insertion, and complications were also compared. Parametric variables were analysed using unpaired t -test and categorical variables were analysed using Mann-Whitney and Chi-square test.
Results: In all, 200 patients were analysed. The mean oropharyngeal sealing pressure in Group P was 25.4 ± 3.5 cmH2 O and 24.9 ± 3.8 cmH2 O in Group W, ( P = 0.34). There was no significant difference between the two groups in any of the secondary outcomes. There were no traumatic insertion or complications reported in both the groups.
Conclusion: Pinna-based size selection method can be used in PLMA placement in the paediatric population for positive pressure ventilation and it serves as an alternative method to weight-based selection.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app