Dataset Information

Can Positive-Pressure Ventilation be Administered with Laryngeal Mask to Pediatric Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Operation?

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

We aimed to investigate the effects of intubation and laryngeal mask airway (LMA) use by evaluating the results of blood gas tests, end-tidal CO₂ measurements, and airway changes during laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in children.

Methods

This study was designed to be a prospective randomized study enrolling 150 ASA-I patients, aged 1-8 years; who were scheduled for laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Group 1 (n=75) received general anesthesia with fentanyl, propofol, and rocuronium and they were orotracheally intubated. Group 2 (n=75) received general anesthesia with fentanyl and propofol and were inserted an LMA. Demographical data were recorded. Arterial blood gas test results at baseline, in the 10^th min after the insufflation, and in the 10^th min after the end of the insufflation were noted. The end-tidal CO₂, HR, SPO₂, inspiratory pressure, plateau pressure, tidal volume (TV), and respiratory frequencies were recorded. The duration of anesthesia, operation, and insufflations was noted. Emergent complications were recorded.

Results

The duration of both anesthesia and recovery was longer in Group 1 compared to Group 2. Hemodynamical parameters, end-tidal CO₂ values, TVs, airway pressures, and respiratory frequencies were not statistically significantly different between the groups. There were no statistically meaningful differences in the levels of pH, PCO₂, and PO₂ between the groups.

Conclusion

Compared to orotracheal intubation during laparoscopic inguinal surgery; LMA did not cause any statistically significant differences in the blood gas test results or airway pressures and recovery was faster with LMA. Therefore, LMA can be used in pediatric laparoscopic surgery as a safe tool for maintaining the airway.

SUBMITTER: Turk HS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8085441 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceDespite rapid adoption of the robotic platform for inguinal hernia repair in the US, to date, no level I trials have ever compared robotic inguinal hernia repair to laparoscopic repair. This multicenter randomized clinical trial is the first to compare the robotic platform to laparoscopic approach for minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair.ObjectiveTo determine whether the robotic approach to inguinal hernia repair results in improved postoperative outcomes compared with traditional laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter, single-blinded, prospective randomized clinical pilot study was conducted from April 2016 to April 2019, with a follow-up duration of 30 days in 6 academic and academic-affiliated sites. Enrolled in this study were 113 patients with a unilateral primary or recurrent inguinal hernia. After exclusions 102 remained for analysis.InterventionsStandard laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair or robotic transabdominal preperitoneal repair.Main outcomes and measuresMain outcomes included postoperative pain, health-related quality of life, mobility, wound morbidity, and cosmesis. Secondary outcomes included cost, surgeon ergonomics, and surgeon mental workload. A primary outcome was not selected because this study was designed as a pilot study. The hypothesis was formulated prior to data collection.ResultsA total of 102 patients were included in the study (54 in the laparoscopic group, mean [SD] age, 57.2 [13.3] years and 48 [88.9%] male; 48 in the robotic group, mean [SD] age, 56.1 [14.1] years and 44 [91.6%] male). There were no differences at the preoperative, 1-week, or 30-day points between the groups in terms of wound events, readmissions, pain as measured by the Visual Analog Scale, or quality of life as measured by the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey. Compared with traditional laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, robotic transabdominal preperitoneal repair was associated with longer median (interquartile range) operative times (75.5 [59.0-93.8] minutes vs 40.5 [29.2-63.8] minutes, respectively; P?<?.001), higher median (interquartile range) cost ($3258 [$2568-$4118] vs $1421 [$1196-$1930], respectively; P?<?.001), and higher mean (SD) frustration levels on the NASA Task Load Index Scale (range, 1-100, with lower scores indicating lower cognitive workload) (32.7 [23.5] vs 20.1 [19.2], respectively; P?=?.004). There were no differences in ergonomics of the surgeons between the groups as measured by the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment instrument.Conclusions and relevanceResults of this study showed no clinical benefit to the robotic approach to straightforward inguinal hernia repair compared with the laparoscopic approach. The robotic approach incurred higher costs and more operative time compared with the laparoscopic approach, with added surgeon frustration and no ergonomic benefit to surgeons.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02816658.

Project description:BackgroundLaparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in children is increasingly performed as it allows contralateral inspection and potentially results in shorter operation time and less complications. Evidence from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the superiority of laparoscopic versus open hernia repair is lacking.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed querying PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library databases. RCTs comparing laparoscopic with open hernia repair in children were considered eligible, without year and language restrictions. Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used for quality assessment. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the laparoscopic suturing technique (i.e., intracorporeal or extracorporeal).ResultsEight RCTs (n = 733 patients; age range 4 months-16 years) were included in this meta-analysis. Laparoscopic (LH) and open (OH) hernia repair was performed in 375 and 358 patients, respectively. Complications (seven RCTs, n = 693; pooled OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.79), recurrences (seven RCTs, n = 693; pooled OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.88), and MCIH rates (four RCTs, n = 343; pooled OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.86) were not different between the groups. LH resulted in shorter bilateral operation time (Five RCTs, n = 194; weighted mean difference (WMD) - 7.19, 95% CI - 10.04 to - 4.34). Unilateral operation time, length of hospital stay, and time to recovery were similar. There was insufficient evidence to assess postoperative pain and wound cosmesis, and evidence of substantial heterogeneity between the included studies. Subgroup analyses demonstrated less complications and shorter unilateral operation time for extracorporeal suturing and shorter length of hospital stay for intracorporeal suturing.Conclusions and relevanceNo definite conclusions to decide on the superiority of one of either treatment strategies can yet be drawn from the available literature. There was evidence of substantial heterogeneity and the clinical relevance of most estimated effects is very limited.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Bag mask ventilation (BMV) and extraglottic devices (EGDs) are two common methods of providing rescue ventilation. BMV can be difficult to perform effectively, especially for inexperienced providers and in patients with difficult airway characteristics. There is some evidence that the laryngeal tube (LT) can be successfully placed by inexperienced providers to provide effective ventilation. However, it is unclear whether ventilation provided by LT is superior to that of BMV, especially in the hands of inexperienced airway providers. Therefore, we aimed to compare ventilation efficacy of inexperienced airway providers with BMV versus LT by primarily measuring tidal volumes and secondarily measuring peak pressures on a simulated model. METHODS:We performed a crossover study first year emergency medicine residents and third and fourth year medical students. After a brief instructional video followed by hands on practice, participants performed both techniques in random order on a simulated model for two minutes each. Returned tidal volumes and peak pressures were measured. RESULTS:Twenty participants were enrolled and 1200 breaths were measured, 600 per technique. The median ventilation volumes were 194 milliliters (mL) for BMV, and 387 mL for the laryngeal tube, with a median absolute difference of 170 mL (95% confidence interval [CI] 157-182 mL) (mean difference 148 mL [95% CI, 138-158 mL], p<0.001). The median ventilation peak pressures were 23 centimeters of water (cm H2O) for BMV, and 30 cm H2O for the laryngeal tube, with a median absolute difference of 7 cm H2O (95% CI, 6-8 cm H2O) (mean difference 8 cm H2O [95% CI, 7-9 cm H2O], p<0.001). CONCLUSION:Inexperienced airway providers were able to provide higher ventilation volumes and peak pressures with the LT when compared to BMV in a manikin model. Inexperienced providers should consider using an LT when providing rescue ventilations in obtunded or hypoventilating patients without intact airway reflexes. Further study is required to understand whether these findings are generalizable to live patients.