Comparison of effects of classic LMA, cobraPLA and V-gel rabbit on QTc interval

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authoriduzun, metehan/0000-0003-1406-5473
dc.contributor.authorToman, H.
dc.contributor.authorErbas, M.
dc.contributor.authorKiraz, H. A.
dc.contributor.authorSahin, H.
dc.contributor.authorOvali, M. A.
dc.contributor.authorUzun, M.
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-27T20:41:24Z
dc.date.available2025-01-27T20:41:24Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.departmentÇanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractAIM: We aimed to compare the effects of three different supraglottic airway devices, the classic LMA, PLA, and V-gel, on hemodynamics and QTc in rabbits under general anesthesia. METHOD: The rabbits were divided into four groups: Group C (n = 5) control group with no airway device used, Group L (n = 5, classic LMA), Group P (n = 5, CobraPLA) and Group V (n = 5, V-gel-rabbit). Basal values of heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP) and ECG for QTc interval were measured and the measurements were evaluated at 1, 5, 15, and 30 minutes after inserting the airway device RESULTS: The values of HR, MAP and QTc in Group V at minutes 1 and 5 were significantly different to those in Group L and Group P (p < 0.05). DISCUSSION: The classic-LMA and cobraPLA cover a wide part of the perilaryngeal area with cuffs inflated to about 60 cmH(2)O of pressure resulting in mucosal compression. As V-gel rabbit does not have a cuff, it covers a smaller part of the laryngopharyngeal area, and thus does not cause mucosal compression, and the hemodynamic response is weaker. CONCLUSION: When comparing hemodynamic responses to other supraglottic airway devices, the response to V-gel rabbit is minimal and we consider that similar studies using the I-gel on humans are required (Fig. 5, Ref. 31).
dc.description.sponsorshipCanakkale Onsekiz Mart University [TSA-2013-80]
dc.description.sponsorshipThis study was supported by Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University Scientific Research Project Found with TSA-2013-80 project number.
dc.identifier.doi10.4149/BLL_2015_122
dc.identifier.endpage636
dc.identifier.issn0006-9248
dc.identifier.issn1336-0345
dc.identifier.issue10
dc.identifier.pmid26531876
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84973333911
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2
dc.identifier.startpage632
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.4149/BLL_2015_122
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12428/24129
dc.identifier.volume116
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000364353400011
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ4
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherComenius Univ
dc.relation.ispartofBratislava Medical Journal-Bratislavske Lekarske Listy
dc.relation.publicationcategoryinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.snmzKA_WoS_20250125
dc.subjectLMA
dc.subjectcobraPLA
dc.subjectV-gel
dc.subjectsupraglottic airway
dc.subjectQTc
dc.titleComparison of effects of classic LMA, cobraPLA and V-gel rabbit on QTc interval
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu