It was our goal to compare the Proseal-laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) with the classical laryngeal mask airway (LMA) in a german multicenter trial. Handling of the instruments and application criteria were to be tested. 7 anaesthesia departments were able to take part in this study. 280 patients could be investigated after approval of the ethics committee of the medical faculty of the university of Goettingen. 145 patients received the PLMA and 135 the LMA. The surgical interventions were small to moderate procedures with a duration of at least 20 minutes in the sections general surgery, trauma/orthopedic surgery, urology, vascular surgery, gynecology, ENT-surgery and ophthalmology. There was equivalence of the two instruments PLMA and LMA concerning duration and ease of insertion, endoscopic position check, observations on emergence, potential for injury and some postoperative complaints. This equivalence could be confirmed statistically. Laryngospasm was observed in three, Bronchospasm in two patients with the PLMA, in no one with the LMA. In one case of laryngospasm and another of bronchospasm a mechanism of supraglottic laryngeal stenosis has been involved which may occur in rare instances with the PLMA. This mechanism is due to the double cuff of the PLMA with the instruments proximity to the laryngeal inlet. The seal pressure in both groups differs significantly (p = 0.001). The mean value for the seal pressure was 29,3 +/- 0,21 mbar for the PLMA and 20,9 +/- 0,21 mbar for the LMA. In the PLMA the gastric tube could be positioned with the first attempt in 118 patients, with the second attempt in 17 cases. In 10 patients the gastric tube could not be placed. Contrary to the LMA the tip of the PLMA cuff may be bent in some cases with loss of airway safety and positioning of the gastric tube. The symptoms sore throat and painful swallowing on the first postoperative day were more frequent with LMA application. These differences could be confirmed statistically (sore throat p = 0.01, painful swallowing p = 0.04). They may be explained by the more rigid LMA compared to the PLMA and by the fact that the LMA in this study was older than the PLMA, loosing plasticizer. The drainage tube within the PLMA offers safety from aspiration in patients with no primary aspiration risk, additional reassurance for a correct position and a better stability of the airway. Our data may support a wider indication range for the PLMA compared with the LMA. The PLMA may be applied in laparoscopies and lower abdominal surgical interventions. Careful clinical observation will show, if the minimal invasiveness of the PLMA offers an advantage for these patients. The PLMA should not be applied in patients with increased aspiration risk.
Procedure-related costs were calculated for an operating theatre with 10 operating rooms. The variable parameter was the different hygiene regimens for the preparation of the anaesthesia circuit. In April 2003 a change was made for the whole anaesthesia area. Either change of the anaesthesia tube system after every patient or the use of a hydrophobic HME-F (heat and moisture exchange filter) with daily or weekly change of the anaesthesia tube system were calculated. All costs were ascertained on real findings and typical procedures. Data according to safety and hygienic value were discussed and supplemented by our own findings about perioperative pneumonia. The additional costs for the HME-F are covered by the savings for CO(2) lines and the reduction of reprocessing expenses and overall material costs were reduced. The operational work on anaesthesia machines decreased considerably. Combined cost types revealed savings up to 9,72 EUR for a single anaesthesia procedure. Filtration of the respiratory gases for particles, bacteria, viruses and airway climatisation is an additional positive effect of HME-F use. Incidence of postoperative pneumonia on intensive care units was monitored by KISS (German hospital infection surveillance system) and the change to the HME-F regimen did not indicate a higher risk of infection. By the implementation of a weekly change of the anaesthesia tube system using HME filters a hygienic management for anaesthesia circuit reprocessing was found which could mobilize considerable resources.
Leadless pacemakers will most likely be the future of cardiac pacing. Leadless pacing employs a single-chamber system to pace only the right ventricle and is fully self-contained, which eliminates the need for leads. These systems, implanted by using a transcatheter sheath, are indicated for patients who need right ventricular pacing only. These devices enable patients to avoid lead-related complications, from lead fracture to extraction challenges, as well as pocket-related complications such as infection and disfigurement. Leadless pacemakers also are compatible with magnetic resonance imaging and do not require surgical placement, so patients avoid postoperative mobility restrictions. Because this technology will be increasingly used for cardiac internal electronic devices, commonly seen in critical care nursing, nurses must be knowledgeable about the indications for use of a wireless pacemaker, the implantation procedure, postprocedural care, device interrogation, and follow-up. This article discusses leadless pacemakers, clinical indications for their use, key similarities and differences between the current devices being used, key points for nursing care of patients with a leadless device, and the future of this technology.
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.