AutoFlow® (volume-guaranteed mode) versus volume-controlled ventilation for the laparoscopic surgery with BlockBuster supraglottic airway: A randomized controlled trial

被引:0
作者
Chhanwal, Heena Sunil [1 ,4 ]
Kheskani, Divya N. [2 ]
Shah, Amit [3 ]
Patel, Ankita [4 ]
Parita, Gandhi
Solanki, Rekha Nilesh [2 ]
Singh, Aayushi
机构
[1] GCSMCH & RC, Dept Anaesthesia, Ahmadabad, Gujarat, India
[2] Gujarat Canc Res Inst, Dept Anaesthesia, Ahmadabad, Gujarat, India
[3] Kailash Canc Hosp, Dept Anaesthesia, Vadodara, Gujarat, India
[4] B-103 Shreedhar Nest,Near Chitwan Flats,Koteshwar, Ahmadabad 380005, Gujarat, India
关键词
AutoFlow (R); BlockBuster (TM); laparoscopic surgery; volume-controlled ventilation; LARYNGEAL MASK AIRWAY; ENDOTRACHEAL INTUBATION; PRESSURE; ASSOCIATION; MANAGEMENT;
D O I
10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_62_23
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Background and Aims: Supraglottic airway devices used in laparoscopic surgeries must be efficient to counter the increased peak airway pressure (PAWP) and airway leakage that can occur in laparoscopic surgeries. Hence, the implication of AutoFlow in ventilator strategy is propounded nowadays that facilitates low PAWP and high dynamic compliance to achieve targeted tidal volume and end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2). BlockBuster (TM) Laryngeal mask furnishing minimum airway leak. The primary objective was to compare PAWP using the two modes of ventilation through the BlockBuster LMA after intubation, pneumoperitoneum, and Trendelenburg position. The secondary objective was to observe hemodynamic vitals. Methodology: In this single-center randomized controlled trial, we recruited 80 American Society of Anesthesiologists grade I and II adult patients undergoing elective laparoscopic surgeries. They were randomized by computer-generated method into two groups: volume-controlled AutoFlow (R) (VCAF) and volume-controlled (VC) group. Ventilation settings for both groups set to tidal volume 5-6 ml/kg of predicted body weight, positive end-expiratory pressure 5 cm H2O, I: E ratio 1:2, and respiratory rate 12-16/min to maintain targeted ETCO2 of 30-35 cm H2O. Intraabdominal pressure was set to 14 mmHg during pneumoperitoneum and 15 degrees Trendelenburg position. Results: Mann-Whitney U-test for continuous variables and t-test for categorical variables. Data were presented as median (interquartile range). P <0.05 was considered statistically significant. During laparoscopic surgeries with BlockBuster (TM) PAWP at pneumoperitoneum was (20 cm H2O vs. 27 cm H2O) and Trendelenburg position (19 cm H2O vs. 27 cm H2O) was significant lower with VCAF (AutoFlow (R) ventilation) than with VC (P < 0.05). Conclusion: PAWP is significantly low in AutoFlow mode as compared to volume control mode with BlockBuster LMA. In addition, LMA BlockBuster provides good sealing pressure.
引用
收藏
页码:123 / 129
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF EFFECTS OF PRESSURE & VOLUME CONTROLLED VENTILATION IN LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY
    Kumar, Abhishek
    Nanda, Major General H. S.
    JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION OF MEDICAL AND DENTAL SCIENCES-JEMDS, 2015, 4 (27): : 4565 - 4583
  • [32] The effects of pressure- versus volume-controlled ventilation on ventilator work of breathing
    Monjezi, Mojdeh
    Jamaati, Hamidreza
    BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING ONLINE, 2020, 19 (01)
  • [33] The effects of pressure- versus volume-controlled ventilation on ventilator work of breathing
    Mojdeh Monjezi
    Hamidreza Jamaati
    BioMedical Engineering OnLine, 19
  • [34] Pressure-controlled versus volume-controlled ventilation during one-lung ventilation in elderly patients with poor pulmonary function
    Lin, Fei
    Pan, Linghui
    Huang, Bin
    Ruan, Lin
    Liang, Rui
    Qian, Wei
    Ge, Wanyun
    ANNALS OF THORACIC MEDICINE, 2014, 9 (04) : 203 - 208
  • [35] Comparison of volume-controlled and pressure-controlled ventilation using a laryngeal mask airway during gynecological laparoscopy
    Jeon, Woo Jae
    Cho, Sang Yun
    Bang, Mi Rang
    Ko, So-Young
    KOREAN JOURNAL OF ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2011, 60 (03) : 167 - 172
  • [36] Comparative effects of variable versus conventional volume-controlled one-lung ventilation on gas exchange and respiratory system mechanics in thoracic surgery patients: A randomized controlled clinical trial
    Wittenstein, Jakob
    Huhle, Robert
    Mutschke, Anne-Kathrin
    Piorko, Sarah
    Kramer, Tim
    Dorfinger, Laurin
    Tempel, Franz
    Jager, Maxim
    Schweigert, Michael
    Mauer, Rene
    Koch, Thea
    Richter, Torsten
    Scharffenberg, Martin
    de Abreu, Marcelo Gama
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ANESTHESIA, 2024, 95
  • [37] A comparison between volume-controlled ventilation and pressure-controlled ventilation in providing better oxygenation in obese patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy
    Gupta, Sampa Dutta
    Kundu, Sudeshna Bhar
    Ghose, Tapas
    Maji, Sunanda
    Mitra, Koel
    Mukherjee, Maitreyee
    Mandal, Sripurna
    Sarbapalli, Debabrata
    Bhattacharya, Sulagna
    Bhattacharya, Saikat
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2012, 56 (03) : 276 - 282
  • [38] Comparisons of Mechanical Power and Respiratory Mechanics in Pressure-Controlled Ventilation and Volume-Controlled Ventilation during Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Elderly Patients
    Jo, Youn Yi
    Chang, Young Jin
    Lee, Dongchul
    Kim, Yong Beom
    Jung, Junsu
    Kwak, Hyun Jeong
    JOURNAL OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE, 2023, 13 (02):
  • [39] Randomized controlled trial comparing the supraglottic airway to use of an endotracheal tube in sinonasal surgery
    Adams, Austin S.
    Wannemuehler, Todd J.
    Hull, Benjamin
    Wu, Jeffanie
    Chandra, Rakesh K.
    VonWahlde, Kate
    Shotwell, Matthew S.
    Harvey, Stephen
    Higgins, Michael
    McQueen, Kelly
    Turner, Justin H.
    INTERNATIONAL FORUM OF ALLERGY & RHINOLOGY, 2018, 8 (08) : 877 - 882
  • [40] Pressure-Controlled Versus Volume-Controlled Ventilation for Surgical Patients.: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Jiang, Jia
    Li, Bo
    Kang, Na
    Wu, Anshi
    Yue, Yun
    JOURNAL OF CARDIOTHORACIC AND VASCULAR ANESTHESIA, 2016, 30 (02) : 501 - 514