Labrada DA, Miró BA

Language: Spanish
References: 11
Page: 431-437
PDF size: 118.06 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: the endotracheal intubation is the more used method for airways permeability in the patient presenting with rachimedullary requiring mechanical ventilation.
Objective: to compare the use of the ProSeal laryngeal mask versus endotracheal tube in patients presenting with traumatic cervical injury with elective cervical spine surgery.
Methods: a case/control and analytical study was conducted over 5 years. The sample included 158 patients presenting with cervical injury who came to our trauma center with criteria of cervical spine fixation and elective surgical correction. Two groups were created by randomized sampling: a study group (ProSeal laryngeal mask) and a control group (orotracheal tube). Data processing included the estimation of summary measures for qualitative variables and for the contrast of homogeneity hypothesis among the study groups authors used the Chi2 test with a significance level of p< 0,05.
Results: there was predominance of patients aged 20 and 30 and of male sex. With the use of laryngeal mask it was achieved the permeation of airway in more than 90 % of cases during the first attempt; with the placement of endotracheal tube only it was achieved in the 70 % of patients. Times required to establish appropriate ventilation were less in those where we used laryngeal mask than in those with endotracheal tube with significant differences from the statistical point of view and less complications after the use of the above mentioned mask.
Conclusions: it was demonstrated that theis type of mask was more effective for airway treatment in patients presenting with cervical trauma.

REFERENCES

1. Stene J. Management of airway problems in trauma patients. Problems in Anesthesia: Anesthesia and Trauma. 1990;4(3):431-6.

2. Brimacombe J. A proposed clasification system for extraglotic airway devices. Anesthesiology. 2004;101:559.

3. Guías para la intubación de emergencia en el traumatizado. Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST). 2002;80:261.

4. Cordero I. Estado actual del arte de la máscara laríngea. Rev Cubana Anestesia. 2004;3(3):43-6.

5. Evans NR, Gardner SV, James MF. The ProSeal laryngeal mask: result of a descriptive trial with experience of 300 cases. Br J Anaesthesia. 2002;88:534-9.

6. Evans NR, Gardner SV, James MF. Proseal laryngeal mask protects against aspiration of fluid in the pharynx. Br J Anaesthesia. 2002;88(4):584-7.

7. Bordes E. Comparison of the laryngeal mask airway to Proseal mask airway in pediatric anaesthesia. Anestehsiology. 2004;88:396-400.

8. Dalgleish D, Bromilow J. The Proseal laryngeal mask. Br J Anaesthesia. 2003;58(8):810-1.

9. Brimacombe J. The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: an easier and safer approach to tracheal tube/laryngeal mask Exchange. Br J Anaesthesia. 2003;58(12):1242-3.

10. Brimacombe J. La inserción de la máscara laríngea Proseal guiada con la bujía elástica es superior a las técnicas digital y con introductor. Anesthesiology. 2004;100(1):25-9.

11. Abdel El-Ganzouri. ProSeal laryngeal mask airway versus endotracheal tuve: ease of insertion, hemodynamic responses and emergence characteristics. Anesthesiology. 2003;95:750-3.