Cette page a été traduite automatiquement et l'exactitude de la traduction n'est pas garantie. Veuillez vous référer au version anglaise pour un texte source.

Effect of Laryngeal Mask Cuff Pressure in Geriatric Patients

5 août 2015 mis à jour par: Sule Ozbilgin, Dokuz Eylul University

Effect of Laryngeal Mask Cuff Pressure on Postoperative Pharyngolaryngeal Complications in Geriatric Patients

Laryngeal Mask is widely used for air-way management during anaesthesia. Pharyngolaryngeal morbidity linked to laryngeal mask use is related to correct choice of mask size, placement technique, placement of the laryngeal mask in the correct position on the larynx, cuff volume and cuff pressure. It has been stated that keeping laryngeal mask cuff pressure below 45 mmHg (60 centimeter of water(cmH2O) ) can prevent pharyngolaryngeal morbidity related to laryngeal mask (throat pain, dysphonia, dysphagia) and shown that using a manometer after Laryngeal Mask Unique placement to limit pressure within the cuff can reduce this morbidity by nearly 70%. Studies commenting on pharyngolaryngeal morbidity generally do not choose a certain age group and cover stages including very young and middle-aged groups. In the literature only one similar study on the geriatric age group was found.

The aim of this study is to compare the postoperative pharyngolaryngeal morbidity in a group with cuff pressure held to 44 mmHg (60 cmH2O with a manometer and a group with Laryngeal Mask cuff inflated without reference to pressure in the geriatric age group with indications for Laryngeal Mask Unique placement.

Aperçu de l'étude

Description détaillée

This study received permission from Dokuz Eylül University Medical Faculty Non-Interventional Ethics Committee and informed consent was obtained from the patients. Ninety patients above the age of 65 with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physiological classification group I-III, undergoing elective surgery and with indications for laryngeal mask placement participated in this prospective, randomized and double blind study.

Patients taken to the operating room were given standard monitoring (ECG, pulse oxymetry, non-invasive blood pressure) and BIS monitoring [BIS-Vista ™ (Aspect Medical Systems, USA)] before anesthesia induction.

After patients were preoxygenated with 6 L/min oxygen through a face mask for 3 minutes anesthesia induction was provided by 0.02 mg/kg midazolam, 1-2 µg/kg fentanyl and 1-2 mg/kg propofol. During respiration Airway was not used, unless there was ventilation difficulty with the face mask. Before insertion the laryngeal mask used in daily routine (Laryngeal Mask Unique® (LMU)) was lubricated with a water-based gel and the cuff was completely deflated. After induction when bispectral index (BIS) values were between 40 and 60 and sufficient chin relaxation was obtained for patients weighing less than 50 kg no. 3 LMU, for those between 50-90 kg no. 4 and for patients above 90 kg no. 5 LMU was inserted by an anesthetist with more than five years experience. The placement method was according to the manufacturer's instructions. All patients were respirated by a breathing circuit with heat and moisture filter.

After the laryngeal mask was inserted the cases were manually respirated so peak inspiratory pressure was less than 20 cmH2O and the cuff of both groups was inflated with a 20 ml injector until the leak sound ceased. To evaluate ventilation the capnogram showed square wave forms and the patients' chest movements were observed, in unsuccessful situations the procedure was repeated. During attempts depending on the patients' reactions and with the requirement of keeping BIS values between 40 and 60, an additional dose of 0.5 mg/kg propofol was administered.

After Laryngeal Mask was determined and when anesthetic depth was sufficient (BIS 40-60) the inner pressure of the LMU cuff was measured and recorded by a manometer (cuff pressure manometer, Rusch, Germany). Later groups were divided in two using a random number table. In the group with cuff pressure limitation (Group Pressure Limiting (PL), n=45) cuff inner pressure was held below 60 cmH2O (44 mmHg), while the routine group (Group Routine Care, n=45) pressure was only recorded.

Anesthesia was maintained by 50% O2:50% air mix with 1.5-2.5% sevoflurane, with sevoflurane concentration and additional fentanyl doses arranged to keep BIS between 40 and 60. All patients were respirated with positive pressure ventilation tidal volume 7-8 ml/kg, inspiring: expiring rate 1:2, respiration frequency on the capnograph end tidal carbon dioxide held between 30-35 mmHg. Oropharyngeal leak pressure measurement was recorded as the pressure value when a leak sound was heard from the mouth after the expiring valve was closed and fresh gas flow was reduced to 3 L/min. Immediately after the laryngeal mask was inserted, every 5 minutes in the first half hour and every 15 minutes after that, tidal volume, mean airway pressure, end tidal carbon dioxide levels and peripheral oxygen saturation values were recorded. If the operation lasted more than one hour a second manometric measurement was taken and stable values were maintained.

After the operation, the LMU's were removed when the patients were awake and could open their mouths on an oral command and unless necessary, aspiration was not applied.After anesthesia the patients were monitored in the recovery unit and analgesia was provided by 5-10 mg intravenous dolantin titration. A researcher blind to the groups recorded throat pain, voice loss and difficulty swallowing in the 1st and 24th hour, classifying as Likert scale ranges from 1 (none) to 4 (severe). Cases developing rare complications of recurrent laryngeal nerve, hypoglossal nerve and lingual nerve paralysis were recorded. The cases were brought to the ward when Aldrete scoring criteria were appropriate. Cases discharged early from the ward had 24th hour evaluation by telephone communication.

Type d'étude

Interventionnel

Inscription (Réel)

90

Phase

  • Phase 4

Contacts et emplacements

Cette section fournit les coordonnées de ceux qui mènent l'étude et des informations sur le lieu où cette étude est menée.

Lieux d'étude

      • Izmi̇r, Turquie, 35320
        • Dokuz Eylül University, School of Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation

Critères de participation

Les chercheurs recherchent des personnes qui correspondent à une certaine description, appelée critères d'éligibilité. Certains exemples de ces critères sont l'état de santé général d'une personne ou des traitements antérieurs.

Critère d'éligibilité

Âges éligibles pour étudier

65 ans et plus (Adulte plus âgé)

Accepte les volontaires sains

Non

Sexes éligibles pour l'étude

Tout

La description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Above the age of 65
  • ASA I-III
  • Undergoing elective surgery

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients with recent history of upper respiratory infection
  • Obese patients with body-mass index above 35 kg/m2
  • Symptomatic hiatus hernia
  • Severe gastroesophageal reflux
  • Dementia

Plan d'étude

Cette section fournit des détails sur le plan d'étude, y compris la façon dont l'étude est conçue et ce que l'étude mesure.

Comment l'étude est-elle conçue ?

Détails de conception

  • Objectif principal: Dépistage
  • Répartition: Randomisé
  • Modèle interventionnel: Affectation parallèle
  • Masquage: Double

Armes et Interventions

Groupe de participants / Bras
Intervention / Traitement
Comparateur actif: Group Routine Care
The placement according to the manufacturer's instructions.
Before insertion the laryngeal mask used in daily routine (Laryngeal Mask Unique®(LMU)) was lubricated with a water-based gel and the cuff was completely deflated. After induction when BIS values were between 40 and 60 and sufficient chin relaxation was obtained for patients weighing less than 50 kg no. 3 LMU, for those between 50-90 kg no. 4 and for patients above 90 kg no. 5 LMU was inserted by an anesthetist with more than five years experience
Expérimental: Group Pressure Limiting
Cuff inner pressure was held below 44 mmHg
cuff pressure limitation (Group Pressure Limiting (PL), n=45) cuff inner pressure was held below 60 cmH2O (44 mmHg)

Que mesure l'étude ?

Principaux critères de jugement

Mesure des résultats
Description de la mesure
Délai
Postoperative Pharyngolaryngeal Morbidity Postoperative 1.Hour
Délai: Postoperative 1.hour
The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of any pharyngolaryngeal complications such as sore throat, dysphonia and dysphagia according to Likert scale ranges from 1 (none) to 4 (severe) at postoperative 1.hour
Postoperative 1.hour

Mesures de résultats secondaires

Mesure des résultats
Description de la mesure
Délai
Postoperative Pharyngolaryngeal Morbidity at Postoperative 24.Hour
Délai: Postoperative 24.hour
The primer outcome was a composite endpoint of any pharyngolaryngeal complications such as sore throat, dysphonia and dysphagia according to Likert scale ranges from 1 (none) to 4 (severe) at postoperative 24.hour
Postoperative 24.hour

Collaborateurs et enquêteurs

C'est ici que vous trouverez les personnes et les organisations impliquées dans cette étude.

Les enquêteurs

  • Chercheur principal: FERİM GÜNENÇ, M.D., Dokuz Eylül University, School of Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation

Dates d'enregistrement des études

Ces dates suivent la progression des dossiers d'étude et des soumissions de résultats sommaires à ClinicalTrials.gov. Les dossiers d'étude et les résultats rapportés sont examinés par la Bibliothèque nationale de médecine (NLM) pour s'assurer qu'ils répondent à des normes de contrôle de qualité spécifiques avant d'être publiés sur le site Web public.

Dates principales de l'étude

Début de l'étude

1 juillet 2011

Achèvement primaire (Réel)

1 juillet 2012

Achèvement de l'étude (Réel)

1 août 2012

Dates d'inscription aux études

Première soumission

28 juin 2014

Première soumission répondant aux critères de contrôle qualité

11 juillet 2014

Première publication (Estimation)

15 juillet 2014

Mises à jour des dossiers d'étude

Dernière mise à jour publiée (Estimation)

31 août 2015

Dernière mise à jour soumise répondant aux critères de contrôle qualité

5 août 2015

Dernière vérification

1 août 2015

Plus d'information

Termes liés à cette étude

Autres numéros d'identification d'étude

  • 269-GOA

Ces informations ont été extraites directement du site Web clinicaltrials.gov sans aucune modification. Si vous avez des demandes de modification, de suppression ou de mise à jour des détails de votre étude, veuillez contacter register@clinicaltrials.gov. Dès qu'un changement est mis en œuvre sur clinicaltrials.gov, il sera également mis à jour automatiquement sur notre site Web .

S'abonner