Advertisement!
Author Information Pack
Editorial Board
Submit article
Special Issue
Editor's selection process
Join as Reviewer/Editor
List of Reviewer
Indexing Information
Most popular articles
Purchase Single Articles
Archive
Free Online Access
Current Issue
Recommend this journal to your library
Advertiser
Accepted Articles
Search Articles
Email Alerts
FAQ
Contact Us
Indian Journal of Anesthesia and Analgesia

Volume  6, Issue 4, July-August 2019, Pages 1283-1292
 

Original Article

Proseal Laryngeal Mask Airway v/s Endotracheal Intubation for Gynaecological Laparoscopic Surgeries

Amruta Changdeo Patil1, Sonal S Khatavkar2, Rosly R Jacob3, Chaitanya Udayan Gaidhani4

1,3,4Resident, 2Professor, Dept of Anesthesia, Dr DY Patil Medical College, Sant Tukaram Nagar, Pimpri Colony, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Maharashtra 411018, India.

Choose an option to locate / access this Article:
60 days Access
Check if you have access through your login credentials.        PDF      |
|

Open Access: View PDF

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21088/ijaa.2349.8471.6419.31

Abstract

Background: Proseal LMA (PLMA), is the latest entrant in the family of LMA designed for positive pressure ventilation and protection against aspiration. These features of PLMA are especially useful in laparoscopy surgeries, which are widely preferred these days and can act as an alternative to the Endotracheal tube (ETT). Rigid laryngoscopy during endotracheal intubation (the gold standard for safe glottic seal) causes hemodynamic responses which add to the stress of pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic surgeries, unlike Proseal LMA which is a supraglottic device and less invasive. Aim: To compare the efficacy and safety of the Proseal Laryngeal Mask Airway with Portex endotracheal intubation in gynecological laparoscopic surgeries under general anesthesia. Setting and Design: A prospective, randomized study was conducted on 60 females, ASA-I & ASA-II patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery under general anesthesia. Ethical clearance and written consent were obtained before the study. Patients were randomly divided into two groups-PLMA (P) and Endotracheal tube (E) depending on the device used to secure the airway. Ease, attempt of of insertion, hemodynamic parameters, and postoperative complications were studied. Results: The insertion rate was 100% in both groups. Vital parameters like heart rate, systolic bp, diastolic bp and mean arterial pressure were relatively lower with Proseal LMA at 1 min, 3 min, and 5 min and after removal as compared to ETT. The difference was statistically significant. There was no significant difference in End-tidal CO2, SpO2, during baseline, insertion, and removal of the device, before and after pneumoperitoneum, and also in airway pressure during insertion, before and after pneumoperitoneum. Perioperative complications were higher with the endotracheal tube. Conclusion: The Proseal LMA offers a safe and effective alternative for airway management in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic procedures under general anesthesia.


Keywords : Proseal Laryngeal Mask Airway; Endotracheal Intubation; Laparoscopic Surgeries,
Corresponding Author : Sonal S Khatvakar