A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Advantages of ProSeal and SLIPA airways over tracheal tubes for gynecological laparoscopies. | LitMetric

Advantages of ProSeal and SLIPA airways over tracheal tubes for gynecological laparoscopies.

Can J Anaesth

Department of Anaesthetics, Guy's, King's and St. Thomas' School of Medicine, King's College London, Guy's Hospital, London, United Kingdom.

Published: February 2006

Purpose: To compare the efficacy of the ProSeal LMA and SLIPA supralaryngeal airways (SLA) with the standard tracheal tube (TT) in 150 consecutive day-case laparoscopic gynecological surgery procedures requiring general anesthesia.

Methods: One hundred and fifty patients were randomized into three groups. An identical general anesthesia technique was used in all patients apart from the addition of muscle relaxants and reversal drugs in the TT group. Patients were excluded if there were risk factors for gastroesophageal reflux. Ease of use, quality of seal, ventilation, systolic pressure, response to intubation, side effects and operating room time were assessed.

Results: Both ProSeal LMA and SLIPA were easy to insert (100% success) and ventilate with respective mean (standard deviation) maximum sealing pressures of 31 (4.6) and 30 (5.2) cmH2O (P = 0.4) with no muscle relaxants. The seal quality in both ProSeal LMA and SLIPA permitted the use of low flows, 485 (291) and 539 (344) mL x min(-1) (P = 0.2) respectively, although in the TT group significantly lower flows [377 (124) mL x min(-1)], (P < 0.01) were achieved. Systolic pressure in the SLA groups was more stable in response to insertion than in the TT. With ProSeal there was a lower incidence of sore throats than with TT (30% vs 57%), (P < 0.05), but there was a lesser difference as compared with SLIPA (30% vs 49%), (P > 0.05). With both SLAs, there was a significant reduction in operating room time (> three minutes), (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: These results suggest that the ProSeal LMA (reusable) and SLIPA (single-use) SLAs were easy to use without requiring muscle relaxants, and reduce operating room time compared to the TT technique in day case laparoscopies.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03021826DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

proseal lma
16
lma slipa
12
muscle relaxants
12
operating room
12
room time
12
systolic pressure
8
slipa
6
proseal
5
advantages proseal
4
proseal slipa
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!