Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparison of gum elastic bougie-guided insertion of LMA ProtectorTM versus the conventional method in achieving oesophagal patency - A randomised comparative study
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparison of gum elastic bougie-guided insertion of LMA ProtectorTM versus the conventional method in achieving oesophagal patency - A randomised comparative study
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparison of gum elastic bougie-guided insertion of LMA ProtectorTM versus the conventional method in achieving oesophagal patency - A randomised comparative study
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparison of gum elastic bougie-guided insertion of LMA ProtectorTM versus the conventional method in achieving oesophagal patency - A randomised comparative study
2023
Overview
Background and Aims:
The passage of a Ryle's tube through the drain port on the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) ProtectorTM has been reported to be arduous despite the larger gastric channel. There are no studies on the evaluation of the guided insertion of LMA ProtectorTM to achieve adequate gastrointestinal drainage function.
Methods:
This randomised study included 132 patients who underwent surgery under general anaesthesia. The gum elastic bougie (GEB)-guided insertion of LMA ProtectorTM (group I) was compared with the conventional method (group II), and the alignment of the tip of the drain tube with the oesophagus was assessed. The insertion characteristics of the device, accuracy of LMA ProtectorTM placement, haemodynamic parameters, and post-operative airway morbidity following the insertion of the device were also compared between the two groups.
Results:
The first-attempt success rate for the placement of LMA ProtectorTM and the patency of oesophagus was higher in group I patients than in group II (100% vs 84.8%; P < 0.001). However, the time taken for device insertion and associated haemodynamic changes were significantly longer in group I. The patients in group I had better visualisation of laryngeal structures. The GEB-assisted insertion of LMA ProtectorTM resulted in less incidence of blood staining at the cuff of the device.
Conclusion:
GEB-guided insertion of LMA ProtectorTM achieved better oesophageal patency than the conventional insertion method. This method also had higher first-attempt success at the placement of the device and was observed to be less traumatic.
Publisher
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow,Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd,Medknow Publications & Media Pvt. Ltd,Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
