Use of laryngeal mask and endotracheal tube-a comparison for ambulatory surgery | [Journal of College of Physicians and Surgeons--Pakistan : JCPSP • 2001]

Author(s):

1. Najma Amjad: Department of Anaesthesiology, Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre, Karachi, Pakistan

Abstract:

To compare the response of laryngeal mask (LM) versus endotracheal tube (TT) in spontaneously breathing female patients undergoing excision of lump breast as day stay surgery. Design: This was a prospective study. Place and Duration of Study: The study was conducted from January to August, 2000 at a private day care centre located at Hamdard University Hospital, Karachi. Methods: All the 40 patients were Injected ketoralac 0.5 mg/kg intramuscularly, 45 minutes before surgery. These patients were induced with injection propofol 2 mg/kg and injection pethidine 0.5 mg/kg intravenously. Patients in TT group were also given injection suxamethonium 1.5 mg/kg at induction after precurarization with injection atracurium 3 mg intravenously. Anesthesia was maintained with 60% nitrous oxide in 40% oxygen with ethrane and spontaneous ventilation. Wound was infiltered with inj. plain bupivacaine 0.5% 10 ml at the end of surgery. Result: Hemodynamic response elicited by airway insertion and removal was less marked in LM group as compared to TT group. Similarly, patients had a lower aldrete score in LM group as compared to TT group upto 45 minutes in postanesthesia care unit (PACU) with no difference thereafter. There was a non-significant difference in time to achieve PADSS score > 9 and fitness for discharge between the two groups, however, 20% patients coughed on LM removal while 75% coughed on endotracheal extubation .

Page(s): 127-130

DOI: DOI not available

Published: Journal: Journal of College of Physicians and Surgeons--Pakistan : JCPSP, Volume: 11, Issue: 3, Year: 2001

Keywords:

Laryngeal mask airway , Spontaneous ventilation , Ambulatory surgery

References:

[1] I. BrainAU. ,Fujii Y .1995 .Thelaryngeamlask:a newconcepitn airway 20. Anaesth, 42(1) : 32-6.

[2] .1996 .. JdinAnaesth, 8(3) : 194-7.

[3] . .Analysisof 1500 laryngeamlask, used by one anaestheti sint adultsundergoingroutine anaesthesiAan. aesthesia 51, (1) : 76-80.

[4] .1999 .Cardiovascularresponsesduring LMA insertio nin normotensivhey,pertensivaend chronicrenalfailure patientsM. siologyS.outhMedJ, 48(8) : 868-73.

[5] Raymand M,James DR .1994 .Prospectivceom parisonof anaesthetricequirementfsortolerancoef parisonof use of laryngeamlask and endotracheal l19a9r2y;n7g5:e7a9m4l-a7s.k and endotrachetaulbe. Anaesth Anaig tubeforambulatorsyurgery.Anaesth Anatg, 79 : 719-27.

[6] . .Theadvantageosf LMA overtracheatulbe orfacemask. CanJAnaesth, 42(11) : 1017-23.

[7] .1992 .The intravenltaryngeamlask instruction manual2. , : .

[8] .1998 .. naesthesia, 53(2) : 126-30.

[9] .1992 .Use of thelaryngeamlaskairwayas an alternativteo face mask during outpatient arthoscopAyn. aesthesiology, 77 : 850-5.

[10] .1978 .aryn 13. KeatsAS. TheASA classificationfphysicalstatus-a recapitulati(oednitorialA)n. ComplicationfoslpatienatnaesthesiJaC.iinAnaesth, 49(Suppl) : 233-l5.

[11] Goodwin APL,Rauve WL,Ogg TW .1999 .fluanrcytniogenaamnladsinkcaidirewncaeyoinf lcaormypnagreiasdloisnworitdheerunsdinogtraa chealtube. EurJAnaesthesiology, 16(8) : 511-5.

[12] .1998 .. Sorethroaatfteruseof laryngeamlask and intubationA.naesthesioRleanim, 23(2) : 144-8.

[13] .1985 .. WaraksaB et al k clinicaslign topredictdifficulttracheainltubationA. prospectivsetudy.CanAnaesth SocJ, 32 : 429-34.

[14] .1996 .The effectof LMA on postoperativinecidenceof nausea, vomiting and sore throa tin children. Anaesthetest, 45(11) : 1085-8.

Citations

Downloads

Views