FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2076284211> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2076284211 endingPage "607" @default.
• W2076284211 startingPage "602" @default.
• W2076284211 abstract "The Supreme laryngeal mask airway (LMA) is a new single-use polyvinyl chloride supraglottic device that combines the functionality of the ProSeal and Fastrach airways. High oropharyngeal leak pressures are important as they indicate airway protection, feasibility of positive pressure ventilation and likelihood of successful LMA placement. The oropharyngeal leak pressure of the LMA Supreme is not well established versus the LMA ProSeal. This study was designed to compare the safety and efficacy of the LMA Supreme versus the LMA ProSeal in elective ambulatory procedures.Hospital ethics board approval was obtained. One hundred and five patients were consented and randomly allocated to LMA Supreme or ProSeal groups. Anaesthesia was induced with intravenous propofol 2-3 mg kg(-1) and fentanyl 1-2 microg kg(-1) and maintained with desflurane in an air-oxygen mixture. Anaesthesiologists with more than 5 years of experience performed all of the LMA insertions. Manometry was used to standardize intracuff pressure at 60 cmH2O. The primary outcome was the oropharyngeal leak pressure. Secondary outcomes were the time and number of attempts for insertion, ease of insertion and the anaesthesiologist's satisfaction score of the airway device. The success on first attempt insertion was measured. Patients were interviewed postoperatively for any pharyngolaryngeal adverse events.A total of 99 patients were analysed for the primary outcome. The baseline demographic data for both groups were comparable. The mean oropharyngeal leak pressure with the LMA Supreme was 21 +/- 5 cmH2O (95% confidence interval 20-22). This was significantly lower than that of the LMA ProSeal, 25 +/- 6 cmH2O (95% confidence interval 23-27; P<0.001). The success rate of the first attempt insertion was higher for the LMA Supreme than for the LMA ProSeal (98 and 88%, respectively; P=0.04). There was no difference in the median time taken for insertion with the LMA Supreme versus the LMA ProSeal: 26 s (interquartile range 23-45) versus 30 s (interquartile range 20-38), respectively (P=0.16). The ease of insertion, postoperative pharyngolaryngeal adverse events, patient satisfaction scores and anaesthesiologist's satisfaction scores were comparable in both groups. There were no complications of aspiration or nerve injuries.The LMA Supreme has lower oropharyngeal leak pressures than the LMA ProSeal. The success of the first attempt insertion was higher for the LMA Supreme. The LMA Supreme is a safe, efficacious and easy-to-use disposable supraglottic airway device in elective ambulatory procedures. The higher rate of success on first attempt insertion may make it more suitable as an airway rescue device." @default.
• W2076284211 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2076284211 creator A5021080199 @default.
• W2076284211 creator A5036672360 @default.
• W2076284211 creator A5045880524 @default.
• W2076284211 creator A5062861611 @default.
• W2076284211 creator A5069141481 @default.
• W2076284211 creator A5077550249 @default.
• W2076284211 creator A5091311236 @default.
• W2076284211 date "2010-07-01" @default.
• W2076284211 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2076284211 title "Safety and efficacy of laryngeal mask airway Supreme versus laryngeal mask airway ProSeal: a randomized controlled trial" @default.
• W2076284211 cites W1568704039 @default.
• W2076284211 cites W1970087318 @default.
• W2076284211 cites W1972994324 @default.
• W2076284211 cites W1980692615 @default.
• W2076284211 cites W1998860405 @default.
• W2076284211 cites W2020872175 @default.
• W2076284211 cites W2026311818 @default.
• W2076284211 cites W2050208859 @default.
• W2076284211 cites W2055799509 @default.
• W2076284211 cites W2059796289 @default.
• W2076284211 cites W2085197858 @default.
• W2076284211 cites W2086899377 @default.
• W2076284211 cites W2114278950 @default.
• W2076284211 cites W2145975092 @default.
• W2076284211 cites W2146156216 @default.
• W2076284211 cites W4245293850 @default.
• W2076284211 cites W71672331 @default.
• W2076284211 doi "https://doi.org/10.1097/eja.0b013e32833679e3" @default.
• W2076284211 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20540172" @default.
• W2076284211 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W2076284211 type Work @default.
• W2076284211 sameAs 2076284211 @default.
• W2076284211 citedByCount "100" @default.
• W2076284211 countsByYear W20762842112012 @default.
• W2076284211 countsByYear W20762842112013 @default.
• W2076284211 countsByYear W20762842112014 @default.
• W2076284211 countsByYear W20762842112015 @default.
• W2076284211 countsByYear W20762842112016 @default.
• W2076284211 countsByYear W20762842112017 @default.
• W2076284211 countsByYear W20762842112018 @default.
• W2076284211 countsByYear W20762842112019 @default.
• W2076284211 countsByYear W20762842112020 @default.
• W2076284211 countsByYear W20762842112021 @default.
• W2076284211 countsByYear W20762842112022 @default.
• W2076284211 countsByYear W20762842112023 @default.
• W2076284211 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2076284211 hasAuthorship W2076284211A5021080199 @default.
• W2076284211 hasAuthorship W2076284211A5036672360 @default.
• W2076284211 hasAuthorship W2076284211A5045880524 @default.
• W2076284211 hasAuthorship W2076284211A5062861611 @default.
• W2076284211 hasAuthorship W2076284211A5069141481 @default.
• W2076284211 hasAuthorship W2076284211A5077550249 @default.
• W2076284211 hasAuthorship W2076284211A5091311236 @default.
• W2076284211 hasBestOaLocation W20762842111 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConcept C105922876 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConcept C2776277131 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConcept C2776900724 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConcept C2777355271 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConcept C2779870758 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConcept C2780378346 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConcept C2780474809 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConcept C2781072394 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConcept C2909644182 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConcept C35785553 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConcept C42219234 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConcept C44249647 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConcept C87717796 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConceptScore W2076284211C105922876 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConceptScore W2076284211C126322002 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConceptScore W2076284211C127413603 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConceptScore W2076284211C141071460 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConceptScore W2076284211C168563851 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConceptScore W2076284211C2776277131 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConceptScore W2076284211C2776900724 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConceptScore W2076284211C2777355271 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConceptScore W2076284211C2779870758 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConceptScore W2076284211C2780378346 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConceptScore W2076284211C2780474809 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConceptScore W2076284211C2781072394 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConceptScore W2076284211C2909644182 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConceptScore W2076284211C35785553 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConceptScore W2076284211C42219234 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConceptScore W2076284211C44249647 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConceptScore W2076284211C71924100 @default.
• W2076284211 hasConceptScore W2076284211C87717796 @default.
• W2076284211 hasIssue "7" @default.
• W2076284211 hasLocation W20762842111 @default.
• W2076284211 hasLocation W20762842112 @default.
• W2076284211 hasLocation W20762842113 @default.
• W2076284211 hasOpenAccess W2076284211 @default.
• W2076284211 hasPrimaryLocation W20762842111 @default.

• next