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

Jamale P B; Shardha Bhaulekar

doi:10.61841/g0j6n215

Authors

Dr P B Jamale Professor, Department of Anaesthesia, Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences, Deemed University, Karad, Maharashtra, India Author
Dr Shardha Bhaulekar Ass.Professor, Department of Anaesthesia, Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences, Deemed University, Karad, Maharashtra, India Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61841/g0j6n215

Keywords:

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

Abstract

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

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Agrawal, G., Agarwal, M. and Taneja, S., 2012. A randomized comparative study of intraocular pressure and hemodynamic changes on insertion of proseal laryngeal mask airway and conventional tracheal intubation in pediatric patients. Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology, 28(3), p.326..

2. Bein, B. and Scholz, J., 2005. Supraglottic airway devices. Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology, 19(4), pp.581-593..

3. Bukhari, S.A., Naqash, I., Zargar, J., Nengroo, S. and Mir, A.W., 2003. Pressor responses and intraocular pressure changes following insertion of laryngeal mask airway: Comparison with tracheal tube insertion. Indian J Anaesth, 47(6), pp.473-5..

4. Drenger, B., Pe'er, J., BenEzra, D., Katzenelson, R. and Davidson, J.T., 1985. The effect of intravenous lidocaine on the increase in intraocular pressure induced by tracheal intubation. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 64(12), pp.1211-1213..

5. Duman, A., Ögün, C.Ö. and Ökesli, S., 2001. The effect on intraocular pressure of tracheal intubation or laryngeal mask™ insertion during sevoflurane anaesthesia in children without the use of muscle relaxants. Pediatric Anesthesia, 11(4), pp.421-424..

6. DUNCALF, D. and FOLDES, F.F., 1973. Effect of anesthetic drugs and muscle relaxants on intraocular pressure. International Ophthalmology Clinics, 13(2), pp.21-33..

7. Forbes, A.M. and Dally, F.G., 1970. Acute hypertension during induction of anaesthesia and endotracheal intubation in normotensive man. BJA: British Journal of Anaesthesia, 42(7), pp.618-624..

8. Ghai, B., Sharma, A. and Akhtar, S., 2001. Comparative evaluation of intraocular pressure changes subsequent to insertion of laryngeal mask airway and endotracheal tube. Journal of postgraduate Medicine, 47(3), p.181.

9. Hagberg, C.A. and Artime, C.A., 2015. Airway management in the adult. Miller RD, Cohen WH, Eriksson LT, Flisher LA, Wiener–Kronish JP, Young WL. Millers anesthesia. 8th ed. Elsevier, pp.1647-83..

10. Helmy, A.M., Atef, H.M., El-Taher, E.M. and Henidak, A.M., 2010. Comparative study between I-gel, a new

supraglottic airway device, and classical laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized spontaneously ventilated

patients. Saudi journal of anaesthesia, 4(3), p.131..

11. Holden, R., Morsman, C.D.G., Butler, J., Clark, G.S., Hughes, D.S. and Bacon, P.J., 1991. Intra‐ocular

pressure changes using the laryngeal mask airway and tracheal tube. Anaesthesia, 46(11), pp.922-924..

12. Ismail, S.A., Bisher, N.A., Kandil, H.W., Mowafi, H.A. and Atawia, H.A., 2011. Intraocular pressure and

haemodynamic responses to insertion of the i-gel, laryngeal mask airway or endotracheal tube. European

Journal of Anaesthesiology (EJA), 28(6), pp.443-448.

13. Jindal, P., Rizvi, A. and Sharma, J.P., 2009. Is i-Gel a new revolution among supraglottic airway devices?.

Department of Anesthesiology American University of Beirut Medical Center PO Box 11-0236. Beirut 1107-

2020, Lebanon, 20(1), p.53.

14. Kannaujia, A., Srivastava, U., Saraswat, N., Mishra, A., Kumar, A. and Saxena, S., 2009. A preliminary study

of i-gel: a new supraglottic airway device. Indian journal of anaesthesia, 53(1), p.52..

15. Kaskel, D., Baumgart, W., Metzler, U. and Fink, H., 1974. Blood pressure, blood flow and intraocular

pressure. Ophthalmic Research, 6(5-6), pp.338-345..

16. Levitan, R.M. and Kinkle, W.C., 2005. Initial anatomic investigations of the I‐gel airway: a novel supraglottic

airway without inflatable cuff. Anaesthesia, 60(10), pp.1022-1026.

17. Maharjan, S.K., 2012. The haemodynamic and ventilatory responses with I-gel, laryngeal mask airway and

tracheal intubation during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Journal of Kathmandu Medical College, 1(2),

pp.84-90.

18. Montazari, K. and Hashemi, K.N.S., 2004. Comparison of hemodynamic changes after insertion of laryngeal

mask airway, facemask and endotracheal intubation. Acta Medica Iranica, pp.437-440..

19. Murphy, D.F., 1985. Anesthesia and intraocular pressure. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 64(5), pp.520-530.

20. Pennant, J.H. and White, P.F., 1993. The laryngeal mask airway. Its uses in anesthesiology. Anesthesiology,

79(1), pp.144-163..

21. Prys-Roberts, C., Foex, P., Biro, G.P. and Roberts, J.G., 1973. Studies of anaesthesia in relation to hypertension V: Adrenergic beta-receptor blockade. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 45(7), pp.671-681..

22. Richez, B., Saltel, L., Banchereau, F., Torrielli, R. and Cros, A.M., 2008. A new single use supraglottic airway device with a noninflatable cuff and an esophageal vent: an observational study of the i-gel. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 106(4), pp.1137-1139..

23. Robinson, R., White, M., McCann, P., Magner, J. and Eustace, P., 1991. Effect of anaesthesia on intraocular blood flow. British journal of ophthalmology, 75(2), pp.92-93..

24. Sood, Jayashree. "Laryngeal mask airway and its variants." Indian J Anaesth 49, no. 4 (2005): 275-280..

25. Watcha, M.F., White, P.F., Tychsen, L. and Stevens, J.L., 1992. Comparative effects of laryngeal mask airway and endotracheal tube insertion on intraocular pressure in children. Anesthesia and analgesia, 75(3), pp.355-360.

26. Weiler, N., Latorre, F., Eberle, B., Goedecke, R. and Heinrichs, W., 1997. Respiratory mechanics, gastric insufflation pressure, and air leakage of the laryngeal mask airway. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 84(5), pp.1025-1028..

27. Wynands, J.E. and Crowell, D.E., 1960. Intraocular tension in association with succinylcholine and endotracheal intubation: a preliminary report. Canadian Anaesthetists’ Society Journal, 7(1), pp.39-43..