Home > Riviste > Minerva Anestesiologica > Fascicoli precedenti > Minerva Anestesiologica 2019 July;85(7) > Minerva Anestesiologica 2019 July;85(7):756-62

ULTIMO FASCICOLO
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
Per abbonarsi
Sottometti un articolo
Segnala alla tua biblioteca
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Estratti
Permessi
Per citare questo articolo

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE   Freefree

Minerva Anestesiologica 2019 July;85(7):756-62

DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.19.13328-7

Copyright © 2019 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

lingua: Inglese

LMA® Protector™ versus traditional LMA to perform endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: a retrospective analysis

Enzo ZAMPARELLI 1 , Alfonso FIORELLI 2, Giuseppe LA CERRA 1, Carmine GUARINO 1, Elena SANTORIELLO 3, Salvatore BUONO 4, Antonio CORCIONE 1, Marco RISPOLI 1

1 Unit of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Vincenzo Monaldi Hospital, Naples, Italy; 2 Unit of Thoracic Surgery, Luigi Vanvitelli University of Campania, Naples, Italy; 3 Unit of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Luigi Vanvitelli University of Campania, Naples, Italy; 4 Unit of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Hospital of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Naples, Italy



BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of laryngeal mask airway (LMA)® Protector™ by comparison with traditional LMA for performing endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA).
METHODS: This was a retrospective observational single-center study including 143 patients who underwent EBUS-TBNA for mediastinal staging of lung cancer. Patients were retrospectively divided into two groups based on whether a traditional LMA (traditional LMA group) or LMA Protector was used. Anesthesiologist outcomes, diagnostic yield of EBUS-TBNA, and complications related to the procedure were computed for each group and statistically compared.
RESULTS: LMA traditional group and LMA Protector group counted 70 and 73 patients, respectively. LMA traditional group versus LMA Protector group showed no significant difference on time of LMA insertion (120±25 vs. 118±39 s; P=0.49), reposition rates (18% vs. 16%; P=0.78); systolic pressure (140±55 vs. 118±37 mmHg; P=0.59); diastolic pressure (82±15 vs. 90±26 mmHg; P=0.39); heart rate (82±9.9 vs. 83±20 bpm; P=0.49); SpO2 values (93±21% vs. 92±14%; P=0.63); diagnostic accuracy (91.3% vs. 92%; P=0.95), and patients’ complications as nausea (4% vs. 3%; P=0.61); vomiting (3% vs. 1%, P=0.96); gastric aspiration (7% vs. 1%; P=0.08); and sore throat (7% vs. 3%; P=0.22). Conversely, LMA traditional group versus LMA Protector group presented a longer procedural time (47±23 vs. 38±17 s; P=0.02), higher number of passage to biopsy target lesion (4±0.5 vs. 3.1±0.6; P=0.01); higher rate of balloon ultrasound rupture (11% vs. 1%; P=0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: EBUS-TBNA conducted with LMA Protector is a useful strategy that reduced the procedural time and in theory ensured the comfort of patients. Our results should be confirmed by larger, prospective, randomized studies.


KEY WORDS: Laryngeal masks; Deep sedation; Bronchoscopy

inizio pagina