Comparison of modified chin lift technique with EC technique for mask ventilation in adult apneic patients
| Autor: | Leena Harshad Parate, PT Prathima, Geetha C Rajappa, CA Tejesh |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2016 |
| Předmět: |
EC technique
Expired tidal volume Mask ventilation business.industry Lift (data mining) Crossover study Chin lift maneuver Chin 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine medicine.anatomical_structure 030228 respiratory system Anesthesia Materials Chemistry Medicine Original Article Statistical analysis mask ventilation Elective surgery business |
| Zdroj: | Anesthesia, Essays and Researches |
| ISSN: | 0259-1162 |
| DOI: | 10.4103/0259-1162.191111 |
| Popis: | Background: Mask ventilation (MV) is an essential basic life support skill. We used chin lift maneuver for MV and named as modified chin lift technique (MCL). EC technique is most common technique used for MV. Aims: The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of both techniques for MV in term of expired tidal volume (TV). Secondarily, we also assessed the effect of experience on the performance of these both techniques. Settings and Design: The study area was operation theater of our hospital. This was a prospective, randomized, crossover study. Methods: A total 108 adults undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia were recruited. In all patients, operators (novice/anesthesiologist) randomly performed both techniques either to start with EC or MCL technique. Expired TV was measured for one minute for each technique. Statistical Analysis: Paired t-test was used to compare TV. Results and Conclusion: The mean TV was significantly higher in MCL group than EC group (528.08 [104.96] ml vs. 483.39 [103] ml; P < 0.001). The novice (521.89 [117.9] ml vs. 478.70 [130.29] ml; P < 0.001) as well as anesthesiologists (534.27 [110.85] ml vs. 488.08 [111.6] ml; P < 0.001) was able to generate significantly more TV with MCL technique than EC technique. The TV did not differ significantly between novice and anesthesiologist for EC technique (P = 0.474) or MCL technique (P = 0.187). Novices as well as anesthesiologist felt MCL technique more satisfactory (70%). Clinical Trial Registration: CTRI/2016/04/006874. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|