A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Evaluation of Insertion Characteristics of LMA ProSeal and AmbuAuraGain in Adult Patients under Controlled Ventilation: A Clinical Study. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: In clinical practice, supraglottic airway devices such as the Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) ProSeal and AmbuAuraGain are often used for airway management under controlled ventilation.

Materials And Methods: One hundred adult patients having elective procedures under general anesthesia with regulated ventilation participated in this clinical research. Patients were divided into two groups at random: Group B (AmbuAuraGain, = 50) and Group A (LMA ProSeal, = 50). Oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP), insertion time, ease of placement, number of tries, and problems like blood-stained device or sore throat after surgery were all recorded. All insertions were made by anesthesiologists with at least three years of experience, and standard anesthetic procedures were followed.

Results: Group A (LMA ProSeal) had a mean insertion time of 18.5 ± 2.5 seconds, whereas Group B (AmbuAuraGain) had a considerably lower mean time of 14.2 ± 2.1 seconds ( < 0.01). Group B had a greater first try success rate (96%) than Group A (88%). Although Group A's OLP was somewhat higher (26.3 ± 3.5 cmHO) than Group B's (24.7 ± 3.2 cmHO), the difference was not statistically significant ( > 0.05). Sore throat was one of the similar post-operative problems, occurring in 10% of Group B and 12% of Group A ( > 0.05).

Conclusion: In comparison to LMA ProSeal, AmbuAuraGain showed a quicker insertion time and a higher first try success rate, suggesting enhanced usability. On the other hand, post-operative problems and oropharyngeal leak pressure were similar for both devices.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12244664PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1739_24DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

lma proseal
20
proseal ambuauragain
12
insertion time
12
group
10
adult patients
8
group ambuauragain
8
group lma
8
oropharyngeal leak
8
leak pressure
8
sore throat
8

Similar Publications