Anesthesia: Essays and Researches  Login  | Users Online: 471 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Home | About us | Editorial board | Ahead of print | Search | Current Issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions | Copyright form | Subscribe | Advertise | Contacts
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 14  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 25-28

Randomized controlled trial to compare Baska® mask versus ProSeal laryngeal mask airway for general anesthesia with intermittent positive pressure ventilation


1 Department of Anesthesia, PIMS, Jalandhar, Punjab, India
2 Department of Anesthesia, GMC, Amritsar, Punjab, India

Correspondence Address:
Joginder Pal Attri
Department of Anaesthesia, GMC, Amritsar, Punjab
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/aer.AER_23_20

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: A myriad of supraglottic airway devices (SADs) are developed over time to search the device that conforms to the anatomy of the human respiratory tract noninvasively, but these devices are associated with the risk of aspiration. Baska® mask (BM) is the latest addition to the family of SADs to circumvent the incidence of aspiration. Aims of Study: The aim of the study was to compare the sealing pressure and rapidity of the insertion of BM with ProSeal laryngeal mask (PLM) airway and the incidence of laryngopharyngeal morbidity between two devices. Materials and Methods: A randomized prospective open-label study was done on sixty adult patients of the age group of 18–60 years after approval from the institutional ethical committee and registration of trial in the Clinical Trials Registry. The patients were randomly divided into two groups: Group I (BM) where BM was inserted after the induction of general anesthesia and Group II (PLM) where PLM was inserted after induction. The airway sealing pressure in BM was calculated. The mean time of insertion of respective SAD and the number of successful attempts were also recorded in both groups. For analysis of continuous variables, independent sample Student's t-test was applied, and for categorical variables, Chi-square test was used. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The rate of successful attempts of insertion was comparable in both the groups. The mean insertion time was 14.25 ± 3.82 s in BM group and 22.01 ± 2.64 s in PLM group, which was statistically significant. The airway sealing pressure was 30.25 ± 3.34 cmH2O in BM group and 23.50 ± 4.05 cmH2O in PLM group, which was also statistically significant. Conclusion: BM has better ease of insertion with adequate sealing pressure as compared to PLM airway, thus reducing the chances of aspiration and offering its potential application in securing airway in emergency situations.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed344    
    Printed26    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded14    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal