Perbandingan Teknik Insersi Triple Airway Maneuver dengan Teknik Laringoskopi Terhadap Keberhasilan Insersi dan Profil Hemodinamik Pemasangan Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) Klasik pada Operasi Elektif

*Bernhard Arianto Purba  -  Bagian Anestesiologi dan Terapi Intensif; Fakultas Kedokteran; Universitas Jambi; Jambi, Indonesia
Rose Mafiana  -  Bagian Anestesiologi dan Terapi Intensif; Fakultas Kedokteran; Universitas Sriwijaya/RSUP Dr. Muhammad Hoesin; Palembang, Indonesia
Yusni Puspita  -  Bagian Anestesiologi dan Terapi Intensif; Fakultas Kedokteran; Universitas Sriwijaya/RSUP Dr. Muhammad Hoesin; Palembang, Indonesia
Published: 1 Jul 2019.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/jai.v11i2.24457 View
COMPARISON OF TRIPLE AIRWAY MANEUVER INSERTION TECHNIQUE WITH LARINGOSCOPY TECHNIQUE ON THE SUCCESS OF INSERSIES AND HEMODYNAMIC PROFILE OF CLASICAL LARYNGEAL MASK AIRWAY (LMA) IN ELECTIVE OPERATIONS
Subject Classic laryngeal mask airway, triple airway maneuver technique, laryngoscopic insertion technique
Type Data Analysis
  Download (153KB)    Indexing metadata
Untitled
Subject
Type Other
  Download (1MB)    Indexing metadata
Open Access
Citation Format:
Abstract

Latar Belakang: Manajemen jalan napas merupakan aspek penting dalam anestesiologi. Alat bantu napas yang sering digunakan adalah laringeal mask airway (LMA). Beberapa penelitian telah dilakukan untuk mencari teknik yang dapat meningkatkan angka keberhasilan insersi LMA dan mengurangi komplikasi. Teknik insersi LMA triple airway maneuver (TAM) dan teknik laringoskopi merupakan teknik insersi yang sering dipakai dalam paktik sehari-hari namun keunggulan kedua tehnik ini perlu diketahui lebih lanjut.

Tujuan: Mengetahui perbandingan keberhasilan dan profil hemodinamik insersi LMA klasik antara teknik TAM dengan teknik laringoskopi.

Metode: Randomized post test only and comparison group design dilakukan di kamar bedah RSUP Dr. Mohammad Hoesin Palembang pada bulan April 2019-Mei 2019 sampai jumlah sampel terpenuhi. Didapatkan total 62 sampel yang memenuhi kriteria inklusi dibagi menjadi dua kelompok, yaitu kelompok teknik TAM dan teknik laringoskopi. Hasil penelitian dianalisis menggunakan uji t-tidak berpasangan dan Chi-square test (p<0,05) dengan SPSS® versi 25.00.

Hasil: Keberhasilan pemasangan LMA klasik dengan menggunakan teknik laringoskopi pada usaha pertama dan kecepatan insersi dengan teknik laringoskopi lebih baik daripada teknik TAM (p<0,05). Profil hemodinamik rerata tekanan sistolik pada teknik laringoskopi lebih rendah daripada teknik TAM (p<0,05), namun rerata tekanan diastolik, MAP, dan detak jantung tidak ada perbedaan bermakna (p>0,05). Selain itu ditemukan keluhan sakit tenggorokan (22,6%) dan bercak darah pada LMA pasca ekstubasi (16,1%) pada teknik TAM.

Kesimpulan: Keberhasilan dan tekanan darah sistolik pada teknik laringoskopi lebih baik daripada teknik TAM.

Note: This article has supplementary file(s).

Keywords: laryngeal mask airway klasik; manajemen jalan napas; operasi elektif; teknik insersi laringoskopi; teknik triple airway maneuver

Article Metrics:

  1. Kumar D, Khan M, Ishaq M. Rotational vs. standard smooth laryngeal mask airway insertion in adults. J Coll Physicians Surg Pakistan. 2012;22(5):275–9
  2. Asai T. Laryngeal mask anesthesia: principles and practice. Br J Anaesth. 2005 May 1;94(5):694–5
  3. Roodneshin F, Agah M. Novel technique for placement of laryngeal mask airway in difficult pediatric airways. Tanaffos. 2011;10(2):56–68
  4. Salih AA. The laryngeal mask airway: technical guidelines and use in special situations. iraqi postgraduat medical, J. 2006;5(2):230–9
  5. Eglen M, Kuvaki B, Günenç F, Ozbilgin S, Küçükgüçlü S, Polat E, et al. Comparison of three different insertion techniques with LMA-UniqueTM in adults: results of a randomized trial. Rev Bras Anestesiol. 2017;67(5):521–6
  6. Simanjuntak, Nelly Margaret Ezra O, Maskoen TT. Perbandingan teknik insersi klasik dengan teknik insersi triple airway maneuver terhadap angka keberhasilan dan kemudahan pemasangan laryngeal mask airway (LMA) klasik. J Anestesi Perioper. 2016;4(3):170–6
  7. Elwood T, Cox RG. Laryngeal mask insertion with a laryngoscope in paediatric patients. Can J Anesth. 1996;43(5):435–7
  8. Choo CY, Koay CK, Yoong CS. A randomised controlled trial comparing two insertion techniques for the laryngeal mask airway flexibleTM in patients undergoing dental surgery. Anaesthesia. 2012;67:986–90
  9. Nichols WW, Hewinson RG. The laryngoscope and the laryngeal mask airway. 1993;49: 82:1993
  10. Wiryana M, Zundert A Van, Senapathi TGA, Aribawa IGNM, Sidemen GPS, Soedarso DT. Accuration insertion LMA with video laryngoscope compare with classic technique. SOJ Anesthesiol Pain Manag. 2017;4(1):1–4
  11. Tan ASB, Wang CY. Fentanyl dose for the insertion of classicTM laryngeal mask airways in non-paralysed patients induced with propofol 2.5 mg/kg. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2010;38(1):1–5
  12. Krishnappa S, Kundra P. Optimal anaesthetic depth for LMA insertion. Indian J Anaesth. 2011;55(5):504–7
  13. Sugiarto A, Hidayat J, Alatas A, Masry. Perbandingan trapezius squeezing test dan jaw thrust sebagai indikator kedalaman anestesia pada pemasangan sungkup laring comparison of trapezius squeezing test and jaw thrust as depth of anesthesia indicator for laryngeal mask insertion. Anesth Crit Care. 2016;34(1):9–15
  14. Riem N, Boet S, Tritsch L, Bould D. LMA with positive pressure ventilation is safe! Korean J Anesth. 2011;61(1):88–9
  15. Schmidbauer W, Genzwu¨rker H, Ahlers O, Proquitte H, Kerner T. Cadaver study of oesophageal insufflation with supraglottic airway devices during positive pressure ventilation in an obstructed airway. Br J Anaesth. 2012;109(3):454–8
  16. Kazemi AP, Daneshforooz MA, Omidvari S. A comparison between a two person insertion technique of laryngeal mask airway and the classic one person technique. Galen Med J. 2013;2(4):179–82
  17. Simons JCP, Pierce E, Diaz-Gil D, Malviya SA, Meyer MJ, Timm FP, et al. Effects of depth of propofol and sevoflurane anesthesia on upper airway collapsibility, respiratory genioglossus activation, and breathing in healthy volunteers. Anesthesiology. 2016;125(3):525–34
  18. Krishna HM, Kamath S, Shenoy L. Insertion of LMA classicTM with and without digital intraoral manipulation in anesthetized unparalyzed patients. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2012;28(4):481–5
  19. Yun M, Hwang J, Kim S, Hong H, Jeon Y, Park H. Head elevation by 3 vs. 6 cm in proseal laryngeal mask airway insertion: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2016;16(57):1–6
  20. Koay CK, Yoong CS, Kok P. A randomized trial comparing two laryngeal mask airway insertion techniques. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2001;29:613–5
  21. Campbell RL, Biddle C, Assudmi N, Campbell JR, Hotchkiss M. Fiberoptic assessment of laryngeal mask airway placement: blind insertion versus direct visual epiglottoscopy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004;62:1108–13
  22. Patil PC, Chikkapillappa MA, Pujara VS, Anandswamy TC, Parate LH, Bevinaguddaiah Y. ProSeal laryngeal mask airway placement: a comparison of blind versus direct laryngoscopic insertion techniques. Anesth Essays Res. 2017;11(2):380–4
  23. Kim GW, Kim JY, Kim SJ, Moon YR, Park EJ, Park SY. Conditions for laryngeal mask airway placement in terms of oropharyngeal leak pressure : a comparison between blind insertion and laryngoscope-guided insertion. BMC Anesthesiol. 2019;19(4):1–7
  24. Sachidananda R, Umesh G, Shaikh SI. A review of hemodynamic response to the use of different types of laryngoscopes. Anaesth, pain intensive care. 2016;20(2):201–8
  25. Hu L, Leavitt OS, Malwitz C, Kim H, Jr RAD, Mccarthy RJ. Comparison of laryngeal mask airway insertion methods, including the external larynx lift with pre-inflated cuff, on postoperative pharyngolaryngeal complications: a randomised clinical trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2017;34:448–55

Last update: 2021-02-25 08:05:04

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2021-02-25 08:05:04

No citation recorded.