A study to compare three airway devices in relation to their effects on IOP and haemodynamic changes in anaesthetized patients

1Dr P B Jamale, Dr Shardha Bhaulekar

195 Views
67 Downloads
Abstract:

The study was conducted in 120 patients aged 15-60 yrs. of ASA grades I and II undergoing non-ophthalmic surgeries requiring general anaesthesia. Patients were randomly allocated into I-GEL, C-LMA and ETT groups. Each group contained 40 patients. The climb in IOP after incorporation of contraption was progressively conspicuous for the tracheal chamber intubation group (18.33+1.92 in right eye and 18.54+2.0 in left eye) than for the LMA group (13.15+1.85 in right eye and 13.12+1.61 in left eye) and I-GEL pack where there was no rising in any way shape or form (11.86+1.61 in right eye and 11.72+1.60 in left eye). The climb in HR after incorporation of device was generally raised in ETT group (99.2±8.39) trailed by C-LMA group (87.75±10.35) and fundamentally no rising in I-GEL group (81.4+11.81). The climb in SBP after consideration of contraption stood out from after acknowledgment regards (108.1+9.71, 107.17+9.14, 108.05+7.23 for I-GEL, C-LMA and ETT exclusively) was generally raised in ETT group (130.57±8.16) trailed by old style LMA group (117.95±7.39) (which didn't rise above pre enrollment regard) and essentially no rising in IGEL group (108.77+9.10). The climb in DBP after consideration of contraption appeared differently in relation to after selection regards (69.22+9.82, 66.87+9.65, 69.12+9.72 for I-GEL, C-LMA and ETT independently) was generally raised in ETT group (84.52±11.78) trailed by LMA group (79.27±7.31) (which didn't rise above pre acknowledgment regard) and for all intents and purposes no rising in I-GEL group (69.8+10.01). Hence it was concluded that i-gel insertion produced the least rise in intraocular pressure and haemodynamic response as compared to laryngeal mask airway and tracheal intubation.

Keywords:

Intraocular Pressure, Hemodynamics, Classical Laryngeal Mask Airway, Endotracheal tube

Paper Details
Month4
Year2020
Volume24
IssueIssue 5
Pages7572-7581

Our Indexing Partners

Scilit
CrossRef
CiteFactor