Comparison of two supraglottic airway devices on postoperative sore throat in children: a prospective randomized controlled trial
Comparação entre dois dispositivos supraglóticos de vias aéreas na dor de garganta pós-operatória em crianças: estudo controlado prospectivo randomizado
Malika Hameed, Khalid Samad, Hameed Ullah
Abstract
Background and objective
Sore throat is well recognized complaint after receiving general anesthesia. This study is conducted to compare the severity and frequency of postoperative sore throat in children undergoing elective surgery – following the use of Ambu laryngeal mask airway) or I-gel® – who are able to self-report postoperative sore throat.
Method
Seventy children, 6 to 16 years-old, undergoing elective surgery randomly allocated to either Ambu laryngeal mask (Ambu Group) or I-gel® (I-gel Group). After the procedure, patients were interviewed in the recovery room immediately, after one hour, 6 and 24 hours postoperatively by an independent observer blinded to the device used intra-operatively.
Results
On arrival in the recovery room 17.1% (n = 6) of children of the Ambu Group complained of postoperative sore throat, against 5.7% in I-gel Group (n = 2). After one hour, the results were similar. After 6 hours, postoperative sore throat was found in 8.6% (n = 3) of the children in Ambu group vs. 2.9% (n = 1) in I-gel Group. After 24 hours, 2.9% (n = 1) of the kids in Ambu Group compared to none in I-gel Group. There was no significant difference found in the incidence of postoperative sore throat in both devices on arrival (p = 0.28); after 1 hour (p = 0.28); after 6 hours (p = 0.30); and after 24 hours (p = 0.31). The duration of the insertion was shorter in Ambu Group and it was easier to insert the I-gel® (p = 0.029). Oropharyngeal seal pressure of I-gel® was higher than that of Ambu laryngeal mask (p = 0.001).
Conclusion
The severity and frequency of postoperative sore throat in children is not statistically significant in the I-gel Group compared to Ambu Group.
Keywords
Resumo
Justificativa e objetivo
Dor de garganta é uma queixa bem conhecida após anestesia geral. O presente estudo comparou a gravidade e a frequência da queixa de dor de garganta pós-operatória associada ao uso de máscara laríngea Ambu ou máscara laríngea I-gel® durante cirurgia eletiva, em crianças capazes de autoreferir a queixa no pós-operatória.
Método
Setenta crianças, de 6 a 16 anos submetidas à cirurgia eletiva foram alocadas aleatoriamente para o emprego da máscara laríngea Ambu (Grupo Ambu) ou para o emprego da máscara laríngea I-gel® (Grupo I-gel). Após o procedimento, os pacientes foram entrevistados imediatamente após admissão na sala de recuperação pós-anestésica-SRPA, uma hora, 6 e 24 horas após a cirurgia por um observador independente e cego ao dispositivo de vias aéreas utilizado no intra-operatório.
Resultados
Na admissão à SRPA, 17,1% das crianças no Grupo Ambu (n = 6) se queixaram de dor de garganta pós-operatória, contra 5,7% no Grupo I-gel (n = 2). Após uma hora, os resultados foram similares. Após 6 horas, houve dor de garganta pós-operatória em 8,6% (n = 3) das crianças no Grupo Ambu vs. 2,9% (n = 1) no Grupo I-gel. Após 24 horas, 2,9% (n = 1) das crianças no Grupo Ambu versus nenhuma criança no Grupo I-gel. Não houve diferença significante na incidência de dor de garganta pós-operatória nos dois dispositivos na admissão na SRPA (p = 0,28); após 1 hora (p = 0,28); após 6 horas (p = 0,30); e após 24 horas (p = 0,31). A duração da inserção foi menor no grupo da máscara laríngea Ambu, e a I-gel® foi mais fácil de inserir (p = 0,029). A pressão de selagem orofaríngea do I-gel® foi maior do que a da máscara laríngea Ambu (p = 0,001).
Conclusão
A gravidade e a frequência da dor de garganta pós-operatória em crianças não foram estatisticamente significantes no grupo com máscara laríngea I-gel® em comparação ao grupo com máscara laríngea Ambu.
Palavras-chave
References
1 A. Macario, M. Weinger, S. Carney, et al. Which clinical anaesthesia outcomes are important to avoid? The perspective of patients Anesth Analg., 89 (1999), p. 652
2 P. Higgins, F. Chung, G. Mezei Postoperative sore throat after Ambulatory surgery Br J Anaesth., 88 (2002), pp. 582-584
3 F. McHardy, F. Chung Postoperative sore throat: cause, prevention and treatment Anaesthesia., 54 (1999), pp. 444-453
4 J. Brimacombe The advantages of the LMA over the tracheal tube or facemask: a meta-analysis Can J Anesth., 42 (1995), pp. 1017-1023
5 Product Information Ambu® AuraOnce™ Single Use Laryngal Mask – Sterile: Ambu, https://www.ambu.com/products/airway-management/laryngeal-masks/product/ambu-auraonce-disposable-laryngeal-mask. [accessed January 1st, 2020].
6 I-gel® – The supraglottic airway with a non-inflatable cuff: Intersurgical, https://www.intersurgical.com/info/igel [accessed January 1st, 2020].
7 About Child & Teen BMI. Center for disease control and prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/childrens_bmi/about_childrens_bmi.html#WhatIsBMI. [accessed January 1st, 2020].
8 B. Das, S. Mitra, S. Jamil, et al. Comparison of three supraglottic devices in anesthetised paralyzed children undergoing elective surgery Saudi J Anaesth., 6 (2012), pp. 224-228
9 A.M.M. Mokhtar, C.Y. Choy Postoperative sore throat in children: comparison between Proseal™ LMA and Classic ™ LMA Middle East J Anaesthesiol, 22 (2013), pp. 65-70 https://www.aub.edu.lb/fm/Anesthesiology/meja/Pages/default.aspx, [accessed January 1st, 2020].
10 H. Kim, J.Y. Lee, S.Y. Lee, et al. A comparison of I-gel™ and LMA Supreme™ in anesthetized and paralyzed children Korean J Anesthesiol., 67 (2014), pp. 317-322
11 L.G. Theiler, M. Kleine-Brueggeney, B. Luepold, et al. Performance of the pediatric-sized I-gel® compared with the Ambu AuraOnce laryngeal mask in anesthetized and ventilated children Anesthesiology., 115 (2011), pp. 102-110
12 S. Rashwan, A. Abdelmawgoud, A.A. Badawy Effect of tramadol gargle on postoperative sore throat: A double blinded randomized placebo controlled study Egypt J Anaesth., 30 (2014), pp. 235-239
13 A.M. Alzahem, M. Aqil, T.A. Alzahrani, et al. Ambu AuraOnce versus I-gel® laryngeal mask airway in infants and children undergoing surgical procedures: A randomized controlled trial Saudi Med J., 38 (2017), p. 482
14 K. El-Boghdadly, C. Bailey, M. Wiles Postoperative sore throat: a systematic review Anaesthesia., 71 (2016), pp. 706-717
15 J.H. Park, J.S. Lee, S.B. Nam, et al. Standard versus rotation technique for insertion of supraglottic airway devices: systematic review and meta-analysis Yonsei Med J., 57 (2016), pp. 987-997
16 L. Beylacq, M. Bordes, F. Semjen, et al. The I-gel®, a single-use supraglottic airway device with a non‐inflatable cuff and an esophageal vent: an observational study in children Acta Anaesthesiol Scand., 53 (2009), pp. 376-379
17 G. Sudhir, D. Redfern, J. Hall, et al. A comparison of the disposable Ambu® AuraOnce™ Laryngeal Mask with the reusable LMA Classic™ laryngeal mask airway Anaesthesia., 62 (2007), pp. 719-722
18 C. Hughes, K. Place, S. Berg, et al. A clinical evaluation of the I-gel™ supraglottic airway device in children Paediatr Anaesth., 22 (2012), pp. 765-771
19 N. Jagannathan, K. Sommers, L.E. Sohn, et al. A randomized equivalence trial comparing the I-gel® and laryngeal mask airway Supreme in children Paediatr Anaesth., 23 (2013), pp. 127-133
20 D.M. Grady, F. McHardy, J. Wong, et al. Pharyngolaryngeal morbidity with the Laryngeal Mask Airway in spontaneously breathing patients. Does size matter? Anesthesiology, 94 (2001), pp. 760-766 https://anesthesiology.pubs.asahq.org/article.aspx?articleid=1944584 [accessed January 1st, 2020].
21 J. Gatward, T. Cook, C. Seller, et al. Evaluation of the size 4 I-gel™ airway in one hundred non-paralysed patients Anaesthesia., 63 (2008), pp. 1124-1130
22 R. Beringer, F. Kelly, T. Cook, et al. A cohort evaluation of the paediatric I-gel™ airway during anaesthesia in 120 children Anaesthesia., 66 (2011), pp. 1121-1126
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email