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 Gastric Insufflation Volume Between Ambu AuraGain and ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway Using Ultrasonography in Patients Undergoing General Anesthesia: A Randomized Controlled Trial. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study compares two second-generation supraglottic airway devices, Ambu AuraGain and LMA ProSeal, focusing on their effectiveness in reducing gastric insufflation volume during general anesthesia in 120 adult patients.
  • Results showed that the Ambu AuraGain group had a significantly lower gastric volume at the end of surgery compared to the LMA ProSeal group (5.91 ml vs. 12.28 ml), along with differences observed within each group.
  • Additionally, while oropharyngeal sealing and peak airway pressures were similar between the two devices, the LMA ProSeal was associated with a higher rate of postoperative complications.

Article Abstract

Introduction: Ambu AuraGain and ProSeal laryngeal mask airway are second-generation supraglottic airway devices (SADs) with added advantage of gastric drain and better oropharyngeal sealing pressure. The primary objective was to study the difference in the gastric insufflation volume between Ambu AuraGain and ProSeal LMA in patients undergoing general anesthesia.

Methods: This randomized controlled trial involving 120 adult patients scheduled under general anesthesia were randomized into either Ambu AuraGain or LMA ProSeal group. Gastric cross-sectional area was measured using ultrasonography at baseline, after mask ventilation, and at the end of surgery. Gastric volume was calculated from the measured cross-sectional area. Oropharyngeal sealing pressure, peak airway pressure, and postoperative complications were noted. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS version 22 (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.) and p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: Demographic profile of the study groups was comparable. There was a significant difference in gastric volume between the groups at the end of surgery with 5.91 ml (±9.68 ml) in Ambu AuraGain group and 12.28 ml (±13.05 ml) in the LMA ProSeal group (p = 0.001). Similarly, there was a difference in volume between baseline and at the end of the surgery within the groups also (Ambu AuraGain group, p=0.0012; LMA ProSeal group, p=0.0015, respectively). Though the oropharyngeal sealing pressure and peak airway pressures were comparable, increased incidence of postoperative complications was observed with LMA ProSeal.

Conclusion: Thus, Ambu AuraGain resulted in a lower gastric insufflation volume than LMA ProSeal with lesser incidence of postoperative complications.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9464011PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.27888DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

ambu auragain
24
gastric insufflation
12
insufflation volume
12
auragain proseal
12
oropharyngeal sealing
12
sealing pressure
12
lma proseal
12
proseal group
12
postoperative complications
12
volume ambu
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!