Effect of SupremeTM laryngeal mask on anesthesia in laparoscopic inguinal hernia surgery and its influence on stress index

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2022.02.010

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To investigate the effect of Supreme^TM laryngeal mask and endotracheal intubation in laparoscopic inguinal hernia surgery and its influence on stress index.

Methods

62 patients with inguinal hernia who came to Deyu Medical Maanshan General Hospital for treatment from February to October 2021 were randomly divided into the control group and the observation group, with 31 patients in each group. The control group received laparoscopic inguinal hernia surgery using endotracheal intubation. The observation group adopts Supreme^TM laryngeal mask laparoscopic inguinal hernia surgery. The hemodynamic index at each time point [before anesthesia induction (T0), when the trachea or laryngeal mask was inserted (T1), 5 min after inserting (T2), removing the trachea or laryngeal mask (T3)], anesthesia quality (eye-opening time, extubation time, fully awake time), changes in airway peak pressure and airway closed pressure at each time point, and incidence of adverse reactions were compared between the two groups.

Results

(1) At T1, T2 and T3, mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) levels in 2 groups increased significantly compared with T0, and MAP and HR levels in the observation group were lower than those in the control group (P<0.05). (2) The eye-opening time, extubation time and full awake time in the observation group were significantly lower than those in the control group during the same period (P<0.05); (3) Compared with the control group, the peak airway pressure and airway closed pressure of the observation group reduced significantly at T1-T3 (P<0.05); (4) The overall incidence of adverse reactions in the observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group (P<0.05).

Conclusion

Supreme^TM laryngeal mask has better anesthesia effect than endotracheal intubation in laparoscopic inguinal hernia surgery, with fewer adverse reactions and higher safety.

Key words: Supreme^TM laryngeal mask, Endotracheal intubation, Laparoscopic surgery, Hernia, inguinal, Stress index

Shanlin Li, Xiaobin Yang, Jingjing Ni. Effect of Supreme^TM laryngeal mask on anesthesia in laparoscopic inguinal hernia surgery and its influence on stress index[J]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2022, 16(02): 172-175.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhshfbwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2022.02.010

https://zhshfbwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2022/V16/I02/172

Figures/Tables 4

References 15

[1]	Weaver KL, Poola AS, Gould JL, et al. The risk of developing a symptomatic inguinal hernia in children with an asymptomatic patent processus vaginalis[J]. J Pediatr Surg, 2017, 52(1): 60-64.
[2]	Esposito C, Escolino M, Cortese G, et al. Twenty-year experience with laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in infants and children: considerations and results on 1833 hernia repairs[J]. Surg Endosc, 2017, 31(3): 1461-1468.
[3]	刘雨辰，朱熠林，陈杰, 等. 不同腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术中二氧化碳气腹对酸碱平衡影响随机对照研究[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2021, 41(4): 415-418.
[4]	Suwa K, Onda S, Yasuda J, et al. Single-blind randomized clinical trial of transinguinal preperitoneal repair using self-expanding mesh patch vs. Lichtenstein repair for adult male patients with primary unilateral inguinal hernia[J]. Hernia, 2021, 25(1): 173-181.
[5]	Gram-Hanssen A, Jessen ML, Christophersen C, et al. Trends in the use of patient-reported outcome measures for inguinal hernia repair: a quantitative systematic review[J]. Hernia, 2021, 25(5): 1111-1120.
[6]	Pokorny H, Bischof G. Open mesh versus laparoscopic mesh repair of inguinal hernia[J]. Eur Surg, 2004, 36(4): 262-263.
[7]	Miserez M, Peeters E, Aufenacker T, et al. European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients[J]. Hernia, 2014, 13(3): 443-444.
[8]	黄俊，蔡小勇，靳小建, 等. 腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术后复发疝再次腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术的经验[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(3): 3.
[9]	郑文龙，蔡洪彬，赖志鸿. 腹腔镜治疗小儿腹股沟斜疝术后复发与并发症分析[J]. 数理医药学杂志, 2019, 32(1): 60-61.
[10]	王兴光，王振元，李明颖. Guardian喉罩在腹腔镜成人腹股沟疝修补术全身麻醉中的应用[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2013, 7(3): 4.
[11]	王媛. 喉罩通气和气管插管全麻用于腹腔镜小儿腹股沟斜疝手术的效果比较[J]. 河南外科学杂志, 2020, 26(4): 30-33.
[12]	黄朝继. 喉罩置入七氟烷吸入全麻在小儿疝气手术中的应用[J]. 中国处方药, 2020, 18(9): 188-190.
[13]	王赢，李辉. 喉罩麻醉和气管插管麻醉在小儿麻醉中的应用效果[J]. 医疗装备, 2020, 33(5): 115-116.
[14]	李宝龙，张素红. 喉罩麻醉与气管插管麻醉在小儿腹腔镜腹股沟斜疝手术中的比较分析[J]. 当代医学, 2019, 25(1): 45-46.
[15]	龚辉，曹小莹. 喉罩麻醉在小儿腹股沟斜疝腹腔镜手术中的应用效果观察[J]. 中国现代药物应用, 2021, 15(13): 51-53.

组别	例数	MAP(mmHg)				HR(次/min)
组别	例数	T0	T1	T2	T3	T0	T1	T2	T3
对照组	31	64.51±5.46	79.48±7.43^a	76.79±7.08^a	77.06±7.12^a	70.86±8.69	89.14±10.47^a	86.83±10.04^a	108.17±10.26^a
观察组	31	64.76±5.53	68.87±6.09^ab	66.01±5.67^ab	67.48±5.91^ab	71.34±8.75	90.59±9.57^ab	97.28±9.07^ab	88.11±9.34^ab
t值		0.18	6.27	6.62	5.76	0.22	3.36	3.94	4.04
P值		0.86	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	0.83	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01

组别	例数	MAP(mmHg)				HR(次/min)
组别	例数	T0	T1	T2	T3	T0	T1	T2	T3
对照组	31	64.51±5.46	79.48±7.43^a	76.79±7.08^a	77.06±7.12^a	70.86±8.69	89.14±10.47^a	86.83±10.04^a	108.17±10.26^a
观察组	31	64.76±5.53	68.87±6.09^ab	66.01±5.67^ab	67.48±5.91^ab	71.34±8.75	90.59±9.57^ab	97.28±9.07^ab	88.11±9.34^ab
t值		0.18	6.27	6.62	5.76	0.22	3.36	3.94	4.04
P值		0.86	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	0.83	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01

组别	例数	患者睁眼时间	患者拔管时间	患者完全清醒时间
对照组	31	7.76±1.41	9.28±1.71	20.62±3.03
观察组	31	6.42±1.16	7.84±1.36	15.34±1.72
t值		4.09	3.67	8.44
P值		<0.01	<0.01	<0.01

组别	例数	患者睁眼时间	患者拔管时间	患者完全清醒时间
对照组	31	7.76±1.41	9.28±1.71	20.62±3.03
观察组	31	6.42±1.16	7.84±1.36	15.34±1.72
t值		4.09	3.67	8.44
P值		<0.01	<0.01	<0.01

组别	例数	气道峰压			气道密闭压
组别	例数	T1	T2	T3	T1	T2	T3
对照组	31	13.41±3.06	15.59±3.17	15.57±3.51	31.52±0.81	32.74±0.63	33.34±1.06
观察组	31	10.23±2.37	13.48±3.25	13.64±3.72	25.19±1.84	25.31±2.28	24.97±2.01
t值		4.57	2.59	2.1	17.51	17.49	20.51
P值		<0.01	0.01	0.04	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export