Comparative analysis of LMA Blockbuster® clinical performance: Blind versus Miller laryngoscope-guided insertion in paediatric general anaesthesia - A double-blinded, randomised controlled trial

被引:2
|
作者
Bihani, Pooja [1 ]
Jaju, Rishabh [2 ,3 ]
Paliwal, Naveen [1 ]
Janweja, Sarita [1 ]
Vyas, Ankit [4 ]
机构
[1] Dr SN Med Coll, Dept Anaesthesiol, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
[2] Jaipur Natl Univ, Inst Med Sci & Res Ctr, Dept Anaesthesiol, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
[3] All India Inst Med Sci, Dept Anaesthesiol, Deoghar, Jharkhand, India
[4] Govt Med Coll, Dept Psychiat, Pali, Rajasthan, India
关键词
Blind insertion; haemodynamic; laryngeal mask airway; laryngoscope; LMA Blockbuster; paediatric anaesthesia; ventilation; SUPRAGLOTTIC AIRWAY DEVICES; PLACEMENT; MACINTOSH;
D O I
10.4103/ija.ija_186_24
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Background and Aims: The second-generation supraglottic airway device is conventionally inserted blindly, which might result in suboptimal placement. Limited literature exists on under-vision insertion techniques, particularly in paediatric patients. The primary objective of this study was to compare the oropharyngeal leak pressure (OPLP) between the blind insertion of the LMA Blockbuster (R) and the Miller laryngoscope-guided insertion in children. Secondary outcomes included the number of insertion attempts, haemodynamic disturbances, insertion time and airway complications. Methods: This randomised controlled trial study enroled 100 patients aged 1-4 years undergoing elective surgery. Patients were randomised into blind insertion (Group A) or Miller laryngoscope-guided insertion (Group B) of the LMA Blockbuster (R). The primary outcome measure was OPLP. Insertion time, haemodynamic changes and postoperative complications were also assessed. The Chi-square, Fisher's exact and t-test were applied appropriately, with the significance level set at P < 0.05. Results: Significantly higher mean OPLP was observed in Group B compared to Group A - 27.9 [standard deviation (SD): 1.58] cmH2O versus 25.94 (SD: 0.63) cmH2O [mean difference (MD): 1.96 (95% confidence interval {CI}: 1.48, 2.44; P < 0.001)]. Mean insertion time was longer in Group B, that is, 11.9 (SD: 1.91) s versus 8.7 (SD: 0.6) s [MD: 3.2 s; (95% CI: 2.63, 3.76; P < 0.001)]; however, the difference was not clinically relevant. First-attempt insertion, haemodynamic stability and postoperative complications were comparable (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Miller laryngoscope-guided under-vision insertion of LMA Blockbuster (R) improves alignment with epiglottic structures compared to blind insertion.
引用
收藏
页码:875 / 881
页数:7
相关论文
共 38 条
  • [1] Comment On 'Comparative analysis of LMA Blockbuster® clinical performance: Blind versus Miller laryngoscope-guided insertion in paediatric general anaesthesia - A double-blinded, randomised controlled trial'
    Rana, Mamta
    Dogra, Neeti
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2025, 69 (02) : 253 - 254
  • [2] Reply to comments on "Comparative analysis of LMA Blockbuster® clinical performance: Blind versus Miller laryngoscope-guided insertion in paediatric general anaesthesia - A double-blinded, randomised controlled trial"
    Bihani, Pooja
    Paliwal, Naveen
    Jaju, Rishabh
    Shivanand
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2025, 69 (02) : 254 - 255
  • [3] Incisional local anaesthesia versus placebo for pain relief after appendectomy in children - A double-blinded controlled randomised trial
    Jensen, SI
    Andersen, M
    Nielsen, J
    Qvist, N
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY, 2004, 14 (06) : 410 - 413
  • [4] Effect of low-dose ketamine versus fentanyl on attenuating the haemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation in patients undergoing general anaesthesia: a prospective, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial
    Ongewe, Angela
    Mung'ayi, Vitalis
    Bal, Rajpreet
    AFRICAN HEALTH SCIENCES, 2019, 19 (03) : 2752 - 2763
  • [5] A randomised, double-blinded, controlled trial of ultrasound guided and clinical examination guided intra-articular corticosteroid injection of large and medium sized synovial joints in inflammatory arthritis
    Cunnington, Joanna
    Marshall, Nicola
    Platt, Philip
    Isaacs, John
    Kane, David
    RHEUMATOLOGY, 2008, 47 : II16 - II16
  • [6] Comparison of Quality of Recovery (QoR-15) following the administration of intravenous lignocaine and fentanyl in patients undergoing septoplasty under general anaesthesia: A double-blinded, randomised, controlled trial
    Chhabra, Alka
    Dave, Milan
    Jeenger, Lalita
    Meena, Reena
    Aggarwal, Ila
    Partani, Seema
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2023, 67 (04) : 388 - 393
  • [7] Electrically guided versus imaging-guided implant of the left ventricular lead in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a study protocol for a double-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial (ElectroCRT)
    Charlotte Stephansen
    Anders Sommer
    Mads Brix Kronborg
    Jesper Møller Jensen
    Kirsten Bouchelouche
    Jens Cosedis Nielsen
    Trials, 19
  • [8] Electrically guided versus imaging-guided implant of the left ventricular lead in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a study protocol for a double-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial (ElectroCRT)
    Stephansen, Charlotte
    Sommer, Anders
    Kronborg, Mads Brix
    Jensen, Jesper Moller
    Bouchelouche, Kirsten
    Nielsen, Jens Cosedis
    TRIALS, 2018, 19
  • [9] Comparison of Clinical Performance of C-MAC Video Laryngoscope Guided vs Blind Placement of I-Gel® in Paediatric Patients: A Randomized Controlled OpenLabel Trial
    Kumar, Rakesh
    Bihani, Pooja
    Mohammed, Sadik
    Syal, Rashmi
    Bhatia, Pradeep
    Jaju, Rishabh
    TURKISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY AND REANIMATION, 2023, 51 (04) : 347 - 353
  • [10] Is regional ankle block needed in conjunction with general anaesthesia for first ray surgery? A randomised controlled trial of ultrasound guided ankle block versus "blind" local infiltration
    Roberts, Veronica I.
    Aujla, Randeep S.
    Fombon, Felix N.
    Singh, Harvinder
    Bhatia, Maneesh
    FOOT AND ANKLE SURGERY, 2020, 26 (01) : 66 - 70