Абстрактный

Comparison between ClassicTM LMA and AMBU�?® AuraonceTM LMA in Patients Undergoing General Anaesthesia for Short Surgical Procedures

Narayan Swamy* and Sarika Sudhir Naik

Background: Both Classical and AMBU® AuraonceTM LMA act as an alternate to endotracheal intubation and standard mask anaesthesia in general anaesthesia. Newer devices are being developed to increase the ease of the insertion and reduce the complications. Methodology: This study was undertaken to compare the ease of insertion, intracuff pressure and oropharyngeal leak pressure between the ClassicTM LMA and AMBU® AuraonceTM LMA with 50 patients in each group. Results: In Group A the time for insertion ranged from 5 s to 40 s and in Group C it ranged from 8 s to 70 s. In Group A in 43 patients the LMA was inserted in first attempt and in 7 patients the LMA was inserted in second attempt while in Group C the LMA was inserted in first attempt in 36 patients, in second attempt in 11patients, in three attempts in 3 patients. The oropharyngeal leak pressure in Group A ranged from 18 to 28 mm Hg and in Group C the oropharyngeal leak pressure ranged from 12 to 19 mm Hg. The mean cuff pressure in Classical LMA rose from 59.96 cm H2O to 86.73 cm H20, whereas in AMBU LMA raised from 55.06 cm H2O to 80.92 cm H20. Conclusion: Time needed and number of attempts for AMBU LMA insertion was significantly less than classical LMA. Oropharyngeal leak pressure was significantly higher in AMBU LMA group which shows that AMBU LMA has less oropharyngeal leak. The intracuff pressure changed significantly in classical LMA compared to AMBU LMA, with more complications.