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

Comparison of the clinical performance of the i-gelTM, LMA SupremeTM, and Ambu AuraGainTM in adult patients during general anesthesia: a prospective and randomized study. | LitMetric

Background: Supraglottic airway devices (SADs) are routinely used for securing the airway. In this study, the clinical performance of three SADs in adult patients under general anesthesia was compared.

Methods: American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-III subjects were randomly assigned to the i-gelTM (I), LMA SupremeTM (L), or Ambu AuraGainTM (A) group (30 per group). The primary objective of this study was to compare insertion times. Additionally, the ease of insertion, number of attempts, oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP), airway maneuver requirement, difficulty with gastric tube placement, and complications were assessed.

Results: Demographic data did not differ between the groups. Group I (16.9 ± 4.9 s) had a significantly shorter time of insertion than Group L (19.6 ± 5.2 s) and Group A (22.1 ± 5.7 s) (P = 0.001). The OLP for Group A (29.8 ± 3.0 cmH2O) was higher than those for Group L (24.1 ± 6.3 cmH2O) and Group I (9.4 ± 6.1 cmH2O) (P < 0.001). The number of insertion attempts (P = 0.232), ease of insertion (P = 0.630), airway maneuver requirement (P = 0.585), difficulty with gastric tube placement (P = 0.364), and complications (P = 0.873) were not significantly different between the groups.

Conclusions: All three devices are convenient and effective for airway management in adults under general anesthesia. However, the shorter insertion time required for the i-gel may make it more suitable for resuscitation and emergencies, while aspiration risk may be reduced with the Ambu AuraGain, given its high OLP.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9346280PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.4097/kja.21212DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

general anesthesia
12
clinical performance
8
i-geltm lma
8
lma supremetm
8
supremetm ambu
8
ambu auragaintm
8
adult patients
8
patients general
8
group
8
ease insertion
8

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!