Comparison between the Use of LMA™ and SLIPA™ in Patients Undergoing Minor Surgeries.

Supraglottic airway devices have been used as safe alternatives to endotracheal intubation in appropriate types of surgery. This was a prospective, randomised, single blind study comparing the use of LMA™ and SLIPA™ in terms of ease of insertion, haemodynamic changes and occurrence of adverse effect...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors:	Abd Rahman I, Nurlia Y, Wan Rahiza WM, Esa K, Nadia MN, Raha AR
Format:	Article
Language:	English
Published:	Department of Surgery, UKM Medical Centre 2012
Online Access:	http://journalarticle.ukm.my/5176/ http://journalarticle.ukm.my/5176/ http://journalarticle.ukm.my/5176/1/03-MS1049%288-13%29.pdf

id	ukm-5176
recordtype	eprints
spelling	ukm-51762016-12-14T06:37:48Z http://journalarticle.ukm.my/5176/ Comparison between the Use of LMA™ and SLIPA™ in Patients Undergoing Minor Surgeries. Abd Rahman I, Nurlia Y, Wan Rahiza WM, Esa K, Nadia MN, Raha AR, Supraglottic airway devices have been used as safe alternatives to endotracheal intubation in appropriate types of surgery. This was a prospective, randomised, single blind study comparing the use of LMA™ and SLIPA™ in terms of ease of insertion, haemodynamic changes and occurrence of adverse effects (e.g. blood stains on the device upon removal and sore throat). A total of 62 ASA I or II patients, aged between 18 to 70 years were recruited for this study. Patients were randomised into two groups; LMA™ and SLIPA™ group. Following induction of anaesthesia, an appropriate sized LMA™ or SLIPA™ was inserted after ensuring adequate depth of anaesthesia. Anaesthesia was maintained with oxygen, nitrous oxide and sevoflurane. The ease of insertion was graded and haemodynamic changes were recorded at 2 minute intervals up to 10 minutes after insertion of the airway devices. The presence of blood stains upon airway device removal at the end of surgery and incidence of sore throat was also recorded. No difficult insertion was experienced in either of these devices. Insertion was either easy [LMA™ 87.1% versus SLIPA™ 80.6% (p = 0.49)] or moderate [LMA™ 12.9% versus SLIPA™ 19.4% (p = 0.16)]. Throughout the study period, the haemodynamic changes that occurred in both groups were not statistically different. Traces of blood were noted on the surface of the device in 9.7% of patients in the SLIPA™ group versus 6.5% of patients in the LMA™ group. The incidence of sore throat was recorded in 12.9% versus 19.4% of patients in the SLIPA™ and the LMA™ groups respectively. These findings were not statistically significant. In conclusion, this study showed no significant differences between the use of LMA™ and SLIPA™ in terms of ease of insertion, haemodynamic changes and adverse effects in patients undergoing minor surgical procedures. Department of Surgery, UKM Medical Centre 2012 Article PeerReviewed application/pdf en http://journalarticle.ukm.my/5176/1/03-MS1049%288-13%29.pdf Abd Rahman I, and Nurlia Y, and Wan Rahiza WM, and Esa K, and Nadia MN, and Raha AR, (2012) Comparison between the Use of LMA™ and SLIPA™ in Patients Undergoing Minor Surgeries. Journal of Surgical Academia, 2 (1). pp. 8-13. ISSN 2231-7481 http://jsurgacad.com/
repository_type	Digital Repository
institution_category	Local University
institution	Universiti Kebangasaan Malaysia
building	UKM Institutional Repository
collection	Online Access
language	English
description	Supraglottic airway devices have been used as safe alternatives to endotracheal intubation in appropriate types of surgery. This was a prospective, randomised, single blind study comparing the use of LMA™ and SLIPA™ in terms of ease of insertion, haemodynamic changes and occurrence of adverse effects (e.g. blood stains on the device upon removal and sore throat). A total of 62 ASA I or II patients, aged between 18 to 70 years were recruited for this study. Patients were randomised into two groups; LMA™ and SLIPA™ group. Following induction of anaesthesia, an appropriate sized LMA™ or SLIPA™ was inserted after ensuring adequate depth of anaesthesia. Anaesthesia was maintained with oxygen, nitrous oxide and sevoflurane. The ease of insertion was graded and haemodynamic changes were recorded at 2 minute intervals up to 10 minutes after insertion of the airway devices. The presence of blood stains upon airway device removal at the end of surgery and incidence of sore throat was also recorded. No difficult insertion was experienced in either of these devices. Insertion was either easy [LMA™ 87.1% versus SLIPA™ 80.6% (p = 0.49)] or moderate [LMA™ 12.9% versus SLIPA™ 19.4% (p = 0.16)]. Throughout the study period, the haemodynamic changes that occurred in both groups were not statistically different. Traces of blood were noted on the surface of the device in 9.7% of patients in the SLIPA™ group versus 6.5% of patients in the LMA™ group. The incidence of sore throat was recorded in 12.9% versus 19.4% of patients in the SLIPA™ and the LMA™ groups respectively. These findings were not statistically significant. In conclusion, this study showed no significant differences between the use of LMA™ and SLIPA™ in terms of ease of insertion, haemodynamic changes and adverse effects in patients undergoing minor surgical procedures.
format	Article
author	Abd Rahman I, Nurlia Y, Wan Rahiza WM, Esa K, Nadia MN, Raha AR,
spellingShingle	Abd Rahman I, Nurlia Y, Wan Rahiza WM, Esa K, Nadia MN, Raha AR, Comparison between the Use of LMA™ and SLIPA™ in Patients Undergoing Minor Surgeries.
author_facet	Abd Rahman I, Nurlia Y, Wan Rahiza WM, Esa K, Nadia MN, Raha AR,
author_sort	Abd Rahman I,
title	Comparison between the Use of LMA™ and SLIPA™ in Patients Undergoing Minor Surgeries.
title_short	Comparison between the Use of LMA™ and SLIPA™ in Patients Undergoing Minor Surgeries.
title_full	Comparison between the Use of LMA™ and SLIPA™ in Patients Undergoing Minor Surgeries.
title_fullStr	Comparison between the Use of LMA™ and SLIPA™ in Patients Undergoing Minor Surgeries.
title_full_unstemmed	Comparison between the Use of LMA™ and SLIPA™ in Patients Undergoing Minor Surgeries.
title_sort	comparison between the use of lma™ and slipa™ in patients undergoing minor surgeries.
publisher	Department of Surgery, UKM Medical Centre
publishDate	2012
url	http://journalarticle.ukm.my/5176/ http://journalarticle.ukm.my/5176/ http://journalarticle.ukm.my/5176/1/03-MS1049%288-13%29.pdf
first_indexed	2023-09-18T19:43:33Z
last_indexed	2023-09-18T19:43:33Z
_version_	1777405750424895488

Comparison between the Use of LMA™ and SLIPA™ in Patients Undergoing Minor Surgeries.

Similar Items