A comparison of the effectiveness of the streamlined liner of pharyngeal airway in paralyzed and nonparalyzed patients undergoing gynecological surgery: a randomized trial

Abstract Study Objective To compare the effectiveness of streamlined liner of pharyngeal airway (SLIPA) in paralyzed and nonparalyzed, anesthetized patients undergoing gynecological surgery. Design Prospective randomized double-blind clinical trial. Setting Intraoperative. Patients A total of 80 fem...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of clinical anesthesia 2016-11, Vol.34, p.327-335
Hauptverfasser: Kim, Min Kyoung, MD, Kang, Hyun, MD, PhD, MPH, Choi, Geun Joo, MD, PhD, Park, Yong Hee, MD, Oh, Jong In, MD, PhD, Baek, Chong Wha, MD, PhD, Jung, Yong Hun, MD, PhD, Woo, Young Cheol, MD, PhD, Lee, Yeon Sil, MD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Study Objective To compare the effectiveness of streamlined liner of pharyngeal airway (SLIPA) in paralyzed and nonparalyzed, anesthetized patients undergoing gynecological surgery. Design Prospective randomized double-blind clinical trial. Setting Intraoperative. Patients A total of 80 female patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists class I or II and who were undergoing gynecological surgery. Interventions The patients were randomly allocated to either the nonparalyzed group (group NR, n = 40) or the paralyzed group (group R, n = 40). Measurements Oropharyngeal leakage pressure was the primary outcome. Insertion time; number of insertion attempts; success rate at first insertion; involuntary movement; peak inspiratory pressure (PIP); leakage fraction; hemodynamic changes; complications, such as blood tinging, regurgitation, and sore throat; and recovery time were also evaluated for secondary outcomes. Main Results Oropharyngeal leakage pressure, which is primary outcome, was no difference among the groups. Insertion time, number of insertion attempts, success rate at first insertion, involuntary movement, leakage fraction, hemodynamic changes, and complications were not statistically different among the groups. The PIP in group NR was significantly increased compared to that of group R ( P = .002). Recovery time was significantly longer in group R than in group NR ( P < .001). Conclusions SLIPA had good performance in both paralyzed and nonparalyzed patients. There was no difference in SLIPA performance or complications irrespective of muscle relaxant use, except decrease in PIP and prolong recovery time in paralyzed patients.
ISSN:0952-8180
1873-4529
DOI:10.1016/j.jclinane.2016.05.021