FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2020528052> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2020528052 endingPage "759" @default.
• W2020528052 startingPage "758" @default.
• W2020528052 abstract "Editor, We wish to thank Xue and colleagues for their interest and astute comments regarding our study. We would like to take the opportunity in this letter to clarify some aspects of our randomized controlled study comparing the safety and efficacy of the Supreme versus the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway. The primary outcome of interest was oropharyngeal leak pressure or airway sealing pressure. Xue et al.1 rightly alluded to the classic paper comparing four methods of airway sealing pressure assessment with the laryngeal mask airway. Keller et al.2 concluded that interobserver reliability of all four tests (audible noise, oral capnography, manometric stability and auscultation) were excellent with low intrinsic variability. For our purposes, we chose the first option – audible noise by listening over the mouth to assess the oropharyngeal leak pressure. Clinically, we found the audible noise test to closely correspond with the manometric stability test. A method similar to ours was performed in a previous published prospective study of 100 patients using the Supreme laryngeal mask airway conducted by Cook et al.3 We do concur that the patients' head and neck position may influence the assessment of oropharyngeal leak pressures for the ProSeal and the Supreme laryngeal mask airways. This was formerly illustrated in two studies for the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway by Xue et al.4 as well as Brimacombe et al.5 Our evaluation of oropharyngeal leak pressures was performed in the neutral position with the patient's occiput resting on a standard single-use foam pillow. This same head and neck posture would be the position in which our patients were placed for the duration of the operation. As yet, no investigator has evaluated the effects of the patients' head and neck position on ventilation and oropharyngeal leak pressures for the Supreme laryngeal mask airway. Certainly, this prompts us to think of it as a viable avenue for further research. Our group chose not to evaluate the anatomical positions of the two supraglottic devices using fibreoptic bronchoscopes, as logistical and ethical concerns proved to be impediments. Advancing this point, Xue et al.4 concluded previously that fibreoptic scoring of the ProSeal cuff position was not an accurate test to assess airway seal and ventilation function. Furthermore, Eschertzhuber et al.6 demonstrated in a cross-over study that there were no differences in fibreoptic position of the ProSeal and the Supreme laryngeal mask airways. The patient population we chose consisted of short duration day-surgery orthopaedic and urology cases at low risk of pulmonary aspiration. We excluded patients with gastrooesophageal reflux, obesity and hiatus hernia. In like fashion with our earlier laryngeal mask airway study,7 it is not our institutional practice to routinely place orogastric tubes with supraglottic airways in this low-aspiration-risk patient population. We had no reported cases of aspiration in both studies.7,8 We agree that intraoperative and postoperative analgesia may affect the assessment of pharyngolaryngeal adverse events such as sore throat, dysphonia and dysphagia. Likewise, so will distracting pain from the operative site. Fentanyl was titrated according to a standardized protocol intraoperatively by the anaesthesiologist and postoperatively by the postanaesthesia care unit nurses. Potential confounders were equally distributed with randomization as seen in Table 1 of our study.8 Assessment of pharyngolaryngeal adverse events was done at multiple time intervals of 1, 2 and 24 h postoperatively to take into account possible time, surgical site and analgesic regime bias. The first attempt success rate for the Supreme was statistically higher than that for the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in a controlled operating room environment. We admit that extrapolation of our findings to the emergency airway management context with a different spectrum of practitioners in a more hostile location may be inequitable. However, we appeal to the readers of this reply to ponder whether the conduct of a prospective randomized controlled trial to address this specific emergency airway management situation is ethically, numerically and logistically possible." @default.
• W2020528052 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2020528052 creator A5036672360 @default.
• W2020528052 creator A5077550249 @default.
• W2020528052 date "2010-08-01" @default.
• W2020528052 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2020528052 title "In reply to: Comparison of safety and efficacy of Supreme laryngeal mask airway and ProSeal laryngeal mask airway" @default.
• W2020528052 cites W1546976730 @default.
• W2020528052 cites W1995431740 @default.
• W2020528052 cites W2020872175 @default.
• W2020528052 cites W2076284211 @default.
• W2020528052 cites W2114278950 @default.
• W2020528052 cites W2145975092 @default.
• W2020528052 cites W4253158217 @default.
• W2020528052 doi "https://doi.org/10.1097/eja.0b013e3283398341" @default.
• W2020528052 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W2020528052 type Work @default.
• W2020528052 sameAs 2020528052 @default.
• W2020528052 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2020528052 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2020528052 hasAuthorship W2020528052A5036672360 @default.
• W2020528052 hasAuthorship W2020528052A5077550249 @default.
• W2020528052 hasBestOaLocation W20205280521 @default.
• W2020528052 hasConcept C105922876 @default.
• W2020528052 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2020528052 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2020528052 hasConcept C164705383 @default.
• W2020528052 hasConcept C2776900724 @default.
• W2020528052 hasConcept C2777324038 @default.
• W2020528052 hasConcept C2778207410 @default.
• W2020528052 hasConcept C2780378346 @default.
• W2020528052 hasConcept C2780474809 @default.
• W2020528052 hasConcept C2909644182 @default.
• W2020528052 hasConcept C42219234 @default.
• W2020528052 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2020528052 hasConcept C87717796 @default.
• W2020528052 hasConceptScore W2020528052C105922876 @default.
• W2020528052 hasConceptScore W2020528052C127413603 @default.
• W2020528052 hasConceptScore W2020528052C141071460 @default.
• W2020528052 hasConceptScore W2020528052C164705383 @default.
• W2020528052 hasConceptScore W2020528052C2776900724 @default.
• W2020528052 hasConceptScore W2020528052C2777324038 @default.
• W2020528052 hasConceptScore W2020528052C2778207410 @default.
• W2020528052 hasConceptScore W2020528052C2780378346 @default.
• W2020528052 hasConceptScore W2020528052C2780474809 @default.
• W2020528052 hasConceptScore W2020528052C2909644182 @default.
• W2020528052 hasConceptScore W2020528052C42219234 @default.
• W2020528052 hasConceptScore W2020528052C71924100 @default.
• W2020528052 hasConceptScore W2020528052C87717796 @default.
• W2020528052 hasIssue "8" @default.
• W2020528052 hasLocation W20205280521 @default.
• W2020528052 hasOpenAccess W2020528052 @default.
• W2020528052 hasPrimaryLocation W20205280521 @default.
• W2020528052 hasRelatedWork W1511643160 @default.
• W2020528052 hasRelatedWork W1528924575 @default.
• W2020528052 hasRelatedWork W1579870993 @default.
• W2020528052 hasRelatedWork W1983181805 @default.
• W2020528052 hasRelatedWork W1991885034 @default.
• W2020528052 hasRelatedWork W2051024685 @default.
• W2020528052 hasRelatedWork W2132058555 @default.
• W2020528052 hasRelatedWork W2417628834 @default.
• W2020528052 hasRelatedWork W4221083591 @default.
• W2020528052 hasRelatedWork W4230410841 @default.
• W2020528052 hasVolume "27" @default.
• W2020528052 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2020528052 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2020528052 magId "2020528052" @default.
• W2020528052 workType "article" @default.