Comparison of Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) & Cuffed Oropharyngeal Airway (COPA) in Spontaneously Breathing Anaesthetized Patients for Short Surgical Procedure

Journal Title: Indian Journal of Anesthesia and Analgesia - Year 2019, Vol 6, Issue 2

Abstract

Background: No anaesthesia is safe or satisfactory unless diligent efforts are made towards maintenance of functioning, unobstructed airway. LMA & COPA both devices can be used to establish an airway for spontaneously breathing anaesthetized patient with little difficult or trauma. Hence the attempt was made to organized randomized clinical comparative study with regards to usefulness & complications of LMA & COPA. Method: Total 60 patients of ASA Grade I and Grade II undergoing elective surgical procedures with both sexes, ranging in the age from 18 to 55 years were included. Informed written consent was obtained from each patient and the procedure explained to the patient. A through pre-operative examination and detailed history was competed according to the proforma. The patients were randomly assigned to either LMA or COPA placement. Result: The demographic data of all patients were comparable in both the groups (p>0.05). First time successful insertion rate was higher in LMA group (93.33%) than in COPA group (83.33%). Airway interventions required more often with COPA & “hands free” ventilation was better with LMA then with COPA. With respect to hemodynamic variables LMA & COPA are equivalents. Conclusion: Considering technical aspects of airway management, LMA is better than COPA with respect higher first time success rate of LMA. More airway manipulation is required with COPA. With respect to hemodynamic stability, LMA & COPA are equivalent. LMA is associated with more incidences of sore throat in immediate postoperative period than COPA. Postoperative late sore throat incidences are similar with LMA & COPA.

Authors and Affiliations

Sangeeta Page

Keywords

Related Articles

Comparing Effects of Intravenous Esmolol and Diltiazem for Attenuatinghemodynamic Responses to Laryngoscopy and Intubation

Introduction: Laryngoscopy and intubation of trachea are integral part of general anesthesia which can trigger adverse hemodynamic responses. These are unpredictable reflex sympathetic stimulations that may cause tachyca...

Comparison of Esmolol and Magnesium Sulphate for Attenuation of Hemodynamic Stress Response to Laryngoscopy and Intubation in Elective ENT Surgeries

The sympathoadrenal response to laryngoscopy and intubation is hazardous in patients with hypertension, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease and intracranial pathology. Various drugs are used to attenuate th...

Comparison of Nalbuphine Versus Buprenorphine as an Adjuvant to Intrathecal Bupivacaine for Postoperative Analgesia in Lower Abdominal and Lower Limb Surgeries

Introduction: Opioids when added to local anaesthetics in sub-arachnoid block decreases the dose of local anaesthetics and offers stable hemodynamics. Nalbuphine is an agonist-antagonist act on kappa receptors providing...

A Comparative Study of Intrathecal Dexmedetomidine with 0.5% Bupivacaine and 0.5% Bupivacaine with Placebo in Lower Abdominal Surgeries

Introduction: Spinal anaesthesia represents an attractive proposition for daycase anaesthesia, being associated with less postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and better postoperative pain relief than general anaesth...

Postoperative Outcome of High Risk Patients in the Intensive Care Unit: A Retrospective Study

Background: This study was to evaluate the postoperative clinical outcome of high risk surgical patients admitted to Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Methodology: This retrospective study reviewed the details of all the 501 po...

Download PDF file
  • EP ID EP619136
  • DOI 10.21088/ijaa.2349.8471.6219.18
  • Views 46
  • Downloads 0

How To Cite

Sangeeta Page (2019). Comparison of Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) & Cuffed Oropharyngeal Airway (COPA) in Spontaneously Breathing Anaesthetized Patients for Short Surgical Procedure. Indian Journal of Anesthesia and Analgesia, 6(2), 474-481. https://europub.co.uk/articles/-A-619136