Background:i-gel™ and the ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) are two supraglottic airway devices with gastric channel used for airway maintenance in anesthesia. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of i-gel compared with PLMA for airway maintenance in pediatric patients under general anesthesia with controlled ventilation.Materials and Methods:A total of 60 American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1 and 2 patients were included in the study and randomized to either i-gel or PLMA group. After induction of anesthesia using a standardized protocol for all the patients, one of supraglottic airway devices was inserted. Insertion parameters, ease of gastric tube insertion and fiber-optic scoring of the glottis were noted. Airway parameters such as end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO2), peak airway pressures and leak airway pressures were noted. Patients were observed for any complications in the first 12 h of the post-operative period.Results:Both groups were comparable in terms of ease of insertion, number of attempts and other insertion parameters. Ease of gastric tube insertion, EtCO2, airway pressures (peak and leak airway pressure) and fiber-optic view of the glottis were comparable in both groups. There were no clinically significant complications in the first 12 h of the post-operative period.Conclusion:i-gel is as effective as PLMA in pediatric patients under controlled ventilation.
Background:Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway (ILMA) is a relatively new device designed to have better intubating characteristics than the standard Laryngeal Mask Airway. This study was designed to compare Intubating Laryngeal Mask with standard Direct Laryngoscopy (DLS), taking into account ease of intubation, time taken for intubation, success rate of intubation, hemodynamic responses and upper airway morbidity.Materials and Methods:Sixty patients, ASA I or II, of age between 20 and 60 years, were enrolled in this prospective and randomized study. They were randomly allocated to one of the two groups: group ILMA, Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway; group DLS, Direct Laryngoscopy. The patients were intubated orally using either equipment after induction of general anesthesia.Results and Conclusions:DLS is comparatively a faster method to secure tracheal intubation than Intubating Laryngeal Mask. ILMA offers no advantage in attenuating the hemodynamic responses compared to direct laryngoscope. The success rate of intubation through Intubating Laryngeal Mask is comparable with that of DLS. The upper airway morbidity and mean oxygen saturation are comparable in both the groups.
Background and Aims:Restriction of head and neck movements prevents the alignment of the oral, pharyngeal, and laryngeal axes and increases the incidence of difficult tracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine fractures. Video laryngoscopes have gained an important role in the management of difficult intubation, especially in situations with limited head and neck movements. This study compares the success of intubation using Macintosh laryngoscope assisted Bonfils® fiberscope (ML-BF) with TruviewPCD video laryngoscope (TV) in patients with simulated restricted head and neck movements.Material and Methods:One hundred and fifty-two patients satisfying the inclusion criteria were randomly allocated to two groups of 76 each. Patients were made to lie supine on the table without a pillow and a soft collar was used to restrict head and neck movements. After a standardized premedication-induction sequence, tracheal intubation was done either with ML-BF or TV. Success of intubation, time taken for successful intubation, hemodynamic changes, airway trauma, and postoperative oropharyngeal morbidity were noted.Results:Intubation was successful in all the 76 patients in direct laryngoscopy-Bonfils fiberscope group and 75 out of 76 patients in TV group within the specified time (90 s). The median time taken for successful intubation with TV and ML-BF were 44 (range 26–80) s and 49 (range 28–83) s, respectively. Hemodynamic changes, airway trauma, and postoperative oropharyngeal morbidity were similar in both groups.Conclusion:Both TV and ML-BF are equally effective for successful tracheal intubation in patients with simulated restricted head and neck movements. In cases of difficult laryngeal visualization with routine Macintosh laryngoscope, Bonfils can be used as an adjunct to achieve successful intubation in the same laryngoscopy attempt.
Background and Aims: Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is a common cause of chronic musculoskeletal pain, characterised by myofascial trigger points (TPs). TP injection is an established technique for management of MPS. In this study, we analysed the efficacy of myofascial TP injection of lignocaine and the influencing biomechanical factors on MPS. Methods: After obtaining ethical committee approval, we included the first 100 adult patients of MPS with failed physical therapy aged above 18 years, and with TPs in the trapezius, infraspinatus, and/or the levator scapulae muscles and Visual analog scale (VAS) >4. TP injection of 2% (2 ml) lignocaine was performed. Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were recorded immediately and after 1 month. Number of repeat TP injections and use of oral analgesic in one month was noted. Results were analysed with the analysis of variance test. Results: The mean VAS reduced significantly both immediately and 1 month after therapeutic injections (8.57 ± 0.77, 2.67 ± 1.43 and 2.82 ± 1.4, respectively, P < 0.01). Keeping the palm below the head during sleep was the major contributing factor for myofascial TP, followed by slanting the neck to use mobile phones. Repeat TP injection was used in 4% of cases. Conclusion: TP injection of 2 ml of 2% lignocaine along with correction of predisposing biomechanical factors provided significant pain relief for MPS in patients with failed physical therapy without any side effects.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.