当前位置： SCI文献检索 > Minerva Anestesiologica期刊下所有文献 > LMA® Protector™ versus traditional LMA to perform endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: a retrospective analysis.

LMA® Protector™ versus traditional LMA to perform endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: a retrospective analysis.

Abstract：

BACKGROUND:The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of laryngeal mask airway (LMA)® Protector™ by comparison with traditional LMA for performing endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA). METHODS:This was a retrospective observational single-center study including 143 patients who underwent EBUS-TBNA for mediastinal staging of lung cancer. Patients were retrospectively divided into two groups based on whether a traditional LMA (traditional LMA group) or LMA Protector was used. Anesthesiologist outcomes, diagnostic yield of EBUS-TBNA, and complications related to the procedure were computed for each group and statistically compared. RESULTS:LMA traditional group and LMA Protector group counted 70 and 73 patients, respectively. LMA traditional group versus LMA Protector group showed no significant difference on time of LMA insertion (120±25 vs. 118±39 s; P=0.49), reposition rates (18% vs. 16%; P=0.78); systolic pressure (140±55 vs. 118±37 mmHg; P=0.59); diastolic pressure (82±15 vs. 90±26 mmHg; P=0.39); heart rate (82±9.9 vs. 83±20 bpm; P=0.49); SpO2 values (93±21% vs. 92±14%; P=0.63); diagnostic accuracy (91.3% vs. 92%; P=0.95), and patients' complications as nausea (4% vs. 3%; P=0.61); vomiting (3% vs. 1%, P=0.96); gastric aspiration (7% vs. 1%; P=0.08); and sore throat (7% vs. 3%; P=0.22). Conversely, LMA traditional group versus LMA Protector group presented a longer procedural time (47±23 vs. 38±17 s; P=0.02), higher number of passage to biopsy target lesion (4±0.5 vs. 3.1±0.6; P=0.01); higher rate of balloon ultrasound rupture (11% vs. 1%; P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS:EBUS-TBNA conducted with LMA Protector is a useful strategy that reduced the procedural time and in theory ensured the comfort of patients. Our results should be confirmed by larger, prospective, randomized studies.

journal_name

Minerva Anestesiol

journal_title

Minerva anestesiologica

authors

Zamparelli E,Fiorelli A,La Cerra G,Guarino C,Santoriello E,Buono S,Corcione A,Rispoli M

doi

10.23736/S0375-9393.19.13328-7

subject

Has Abstract

pub_date

2019-07-01 00:00:00

pages

756-762

issue

eissn

0375-9393

issn

1827-1596

pii

S0375-9393.19.13328-7

journal_volume

pub_type

杂志文章

在线工具

LMA® Protector™ versus traditional LMA to perform endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: a retrospective analysis.