Background and aim The primary aim of the study was to compare the intubation characteristics and effectiveness of intubating laryngeal mask airway (ILMA) and Ambu® Aura-i™ as a conduit for facilitating fiberoptic-guided intubation. Methods Eighty patients were enrolled in the randomized-controlled hospital-based study. After inducing general anesthesia, an appropriately sized ILMA (group 1)/Ambu Aura-I (group 2) was placed. Fiberoptic assessment of the glottic view was done followed by fiberoptic-guided tracheal intubation. The time taken for the insertion of ILMA/Ambu Aura-i, glottic view grading, time taken for fiberoptic-guided intubation, ease of intubation, time taken for the removal of ILMA/Ambu Aura-i were recorded. Data analysis was done using the two-tailed independent t-test, paired t-test, and Fisher's exact probability test. Result Anthropometric and airway parameters were similar in both groups. The success rate of the insertion of both devices was 100%. In group 1, the mean time taken for the insertion was 20.53±1.91, and it was 13.98±2.4 in group 2 (P<0.001S). Fiberoptic assessment of the glottic view in group 1 (ILMA group) was grade 1 in 80% of the patients, whereas it was 92% in group 2 (Ambu Aura-i) (P=0.54). The mean time taken for fiberoptic-guided intubation was 14.95±1.85 in group 1 and 14.15±1.37 in group 2 (P>0.001). No significant difference was observed according to the number of attempts in intubating through ILMA/Ambu Aura-i. Seventy-five percent (75%) in group 1 and 87.5% in group 2 were successfully inserted on the first attempt (= 0.33). The time taken for the removal of the device was 11.87 +1.265 seconds in group 1 and 11.25±1.58 seconds in group 2 (P=0.054). Conclusion The Ambu Aura-i scores superiorly over ILMA in requiring less time for successful insertion on the basis of statistical analysis and hence appears to be a better independent ventilatory device.
Background: General anaesthesia (GA) is the conventional technique used for surgical treatment of breast lumps. However, various side effects and complications of GA, such as postoperative pain, nausea, vomiting, and increased hospital stay increase morbidity in patients. Regional anaesthesia using multiple injection paravertebral block is an ideal alternative to GA for breast surgeries.Methods: Sixty female patients posted for unilateral breast surgery were randomly divided into two groups, Group P for paravertebral block and group G for GA, and compared on the basis of time taken for induction of anaesthesia, postoperative pain relief on basis of Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and duration of hospital stay.Results: Duration of surgery in group P was 64.75±18.07 and 67.32±17.64 in group G respectively (P>0.05). Time for inducing anaesthesia was significantly longer in group P (17.15±3.92min) compared to group G (5.90±1.75min) with P<0.05. Significant difference (P<0.001) was observed in the mean duration of postoperative analgesia of group P (298.34±67.02min) and group G (107.68±27.28min). The VAS scores in immediate postoperative period and after two and four hours in the postoperative period were significantly higher in group G (P<0.05). The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was significantly higher in group G (13 out of 30 patients) than group P (four out of 28 patients) with P<0.05. Conclusion:The efficacy and safety of paravertebral block for operative treatment of breast tumors, excellent analgesia in early postoperative period, requirement of significantly lesser amount of postoperative analgesics, decreased incidence of PONV and negligible complications along with early ambulation and hospital discharge makes it an afferent cost-effective block of choice for unilateral breast surgeries.
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.