• Ali Peirovifar, Mahmood Eydi, Mir Mousa Mirinejhad, Ata Mahmoodpoor, Afsaneh Mohammadi, and Samad Ej Golzari.
• Ali Peirovifar, Associate Professor of Anesthesiology, Fellowship of Critical Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Anesthesiology Research Team, Department of Anesthesiology, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
• Pak J Med Sci. 2013 Apr 1; 29 (2): 601-5.

ObjectiveTo compare the postoperative complications between Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) and endotracheal tube (ETT) during low-flow anesthesia with controlled ventilation.MethodologyEighty adult Patients with ASA class I or II were randomly allocated into two forty-patient groups (ETT or LMA). Cuff pressure was monitored during anesthesia. After high uptake period, fresh gas flow (FGF) was decreased to 1 lit/min and isoflurane set to 1%. Monitoring during anesthesia included non-invasive blood pressure, ECG, ETCO2 and pulse oximetry. System leakage (>100 ml/min), rebreathing and any attempt to increase FGF to overcome the leak were monitored during anesthesia. Later, patients were extubated and transferred to Post Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU). In PACU, the incidence of sore throat, cough, difficulty in swallowing and shivering was monitored for all patients.ResultsLeakage was observed in two and three cases in ETT and LMA groups respectively (P>0.05). Postoperative cough, sore throat and difficulty in swallowing were significantly less in LMA than ETT group. No significant difference was observed regarding ETCo2 values between 2 groups.ConclusionIf careful measures regarding insertion techniques, correct LMA position and routine monitoring of LMA cuff pressure are taken, LMA can be used as a safe alternative with lower incidence of post operation complication compared with ETT during low-flow controlled anesthesia with modern anesthetic machines.

4 keywords...

hide…