Volume 14, Issue 12 (12-2016)                   IJRM 2016, 14(12): 755-760 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Jarahzadeh M H, Halvaei I, Rahimi-Bashar F, Behdad S, Abbasizadeh Nasrabady R, Yasaei E. The role of ventilation mode using a laryngeal mask airway during gynecological laparoscopy on lung mechanics, hemodynamic response and blood gas analysis. IJRM. 2016; 14 (12) :755-760
URL: http://journals.ssu.ac.ir/ijrmnew/article-1-714-en.html
1- Anesthesiology and Critical Care Department, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
2- Department of Anatomical Sciences, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
3- Anesthesiology and Critical Care Department, School of Medicine, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
4- Anesthesiology and Critical Care Department, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran , dr.elaheyasaei@gmail.com
Abstract:   (458 Views)
Background: There are two methods for ventilation in gynecological laparoscopy: volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) and pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV).
Objective: To compare the lung mechanics, hemodynamic response and arterial blood gas analysis and gas exchange of two modes of VCV and PCV using laryngeal mask airway (LMA) at different time intervals.
Materials and Methods: Sixty infertile women referred for diagnostic laparoscopy, based on ventilation mode, were randomly divided into two groups of VCV (tidal volume: 10 ml/kg) and PCV. In the PCV group, ventilation was initiated with a peak airway pressure (tidal volume: 10 ml/kg, upper limit: 35 cm H2O). In both groups, the arterial blood samples were taken in several time intervals (5, 10 and 15 min after LMA insertion) for blood gas evaluation. Also the lung mechanics parameters were continuously monitored and were recorded at different time intervals.
Results: There were no significant differences for patient’s age, weight, height and BMI in two groups. The peak and plateau airway pressure were significantly higher in VCV group compared to PCV group 5 and 10 min after insertion of LMA. PaO2 was significantly higher after 10 and 15 min in VCV group compared to PCV group (p=0.005 and p=0.03, respectively). PaCO2 showed significant increase after 5 min in PCV group, but the differences were not significant after 10 and 15 min in two groups. The end tidal CO2 showed significant increase after 10 and 15 min in VCV compared to PCV group.
Conclusion: Both VCV and PCV seem to be suitable for gynecological laparoscopy. However, airway pressures are significantly lower in PCV compared to VCV.
Full-Text [PDF 149 kb]   (134 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (49 Views)  
Type of Study: Original Article |

References
1. Oğurlu M, Küçük M, Bilgin F, Sizlan A, Yanarateş Ö, Eksert S, et al. Pressure-controlled vs volume-controlled ventilation during laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2010; 17: 295-300. [DOI:10.1016/j.jmig.2009.10.007]
2. Nadu A, Ekstein P, Szold A, Friedman A, Nakache R, Cohen Y, et al. Ventilatory and hemodynamic changes during retroperitoneal and transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy: a prospective real-time comparison. J Urol 2005; 174: 1013-1017. [DOI:10.1097/01.ju.0000169456.00399.de]
3. Prella M, Feihl F, Domenighetti G. Effects of short-term pressure-controlled ventilation on gas exchange, airway pressures, and gas distribution in patients with acute lung injury/ARDS: comparison with volume-controlled ventilation. Chest 2002; 122: 1382-1388. [DOI:10.1378/chest.122.4.1382]
4. Tuğrul M, Camci E, Karadeniz H, Sentürk M, Pembeci K, Akpir K. Comparison of volume controlled with pressure controlled ventilation during one-lung anaesthesia. Br J Anaes 1997; 79: 306-310. [DOI:10.1093/bja/79.3.306]
5. Jeon WJ, Cho SY, Bang MR, Ko S-Y. Comparison of volume-controlled and pressure-controlled ventilation using a laryngeal mask airway during gynecological laparoscopy. Korean J Anesthesiol 2011; 60: 167-172. [DOI:10.4097/kjae.2011.60.3.167]
6. Davis K, Branson RD, Campbell RS, Porembka DT. Comparison of volume control and pressure control ventilation: is flow waveform the difference? J Trauma 1996; 41: 808-814. [DOI:10.1097/00005373-199611000-00007]
7. Brain A, McGhee T, McAteer E, Thomas A, Abu-Saad M, Bushman J. The laryngeal mask airway. Development and preliminary trials of a new type of airway. Anaesthesia 1985; 40: 356- 361. [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2044.1985.tb10789.x]
8. Maltby JR, Beriault MT, Watson NC, Fick GH. Gastric distension and ventilation during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: LMA-Classic vs. tracheal intubation. Canadian J Anaest 2000; 47: 622-626. [DOI:10.1007/BF03018993]
9. Galvin EM, van Doorn M, Blazquez J, Ubben JF, Zijlstra FJ, Klein J, et al. A randomized prospective study comparing the Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway and Laryngeal Mask Airway-Classic during controlled ventilation for gynecological laparoscopy. Anest Analg 2007; 104: 102-105. [DOI:10.1213/01.ane.0000246812.21391.d1]
10. Verghese C, Brimacombe JR. Survey of laryngeal mask airway usage in 11,910 patients: safety and efficacy for conventional and nonconventional usage. Anesth Analg 1996; 82: 129-133.
11. Bordes M, Semjen F, Degryse C, Bourgain J, Cros A. Pressure‐controlled ventilation is superior to volume‐controlled ventilation with a laryngeal mask airway in children. Acta Anaest Scand 2007; 51: 82-85. [DOI:10.1111/j.1399-6576.2006.01148.x]
12. Llorens J, Ballester M, Tusman G, Blasco L, García-Fernández J, Jover JL, et al. Adaptive support ventilation for gynaecological laparoscopic surgery in Trendelenburg position: bringing ICU modes of mechanical ventilation to the operating room. Eur J Anaest 2009; 26: 135-139. [DOI:10.1097/EJA.0b013e32831aed42]
13. Hans GA, Prégaldien AA, Kaba A, Sottiaux TM, DeRoover A, Lamy ML, et al. Pressure-controlled ventilation does not improve gas exchange in morbidly obese patients undergoing abdominal surgery. Obes Surg 2008; 18: 71-76. [DOI:10.1007/s11695-007-9300-2]
14. Andres E, Alia I, Gordo F, de Pablo R. Prospective randomized trial comparing pressure-controlled ventilation and volume-controlled ventilation in ARDS. Chest 2000; 117: 1690. [DOI:10.1378/chest.117.6.1690]
15. MacIntyre NR. New modes of mechanical ventilation. Clin Chest Med 1996; 17: 411-421. [DOI:10.1016/S0272-5231(05)70324-5]
16. Cadi P, Guenoun T, Journois D, Chevallier J-M, Diehl J-L, Safran D. Pressure-controlled ventilation improves oxygenation during laparoscopic obesity surgery compared with volume-controlled ventilation. Br J Anaesth 2008; 100: 709-716. [DOI:10.1093/bja/aen067]
17. Unzueta MC, Casas JI, Moral MV. Pressure-controlled versus volume-controlled ventilation during one-lung ventilation for thoracic surgery. Anesth Analg 2007; 104: 1029-1033. [DOI:10.1213/01.ane.0000260313.63893.2f]
18. Balick-Weber C, Nicolas P, Hedreville-Montout M, Blanchet P, Stéphan F. Respiratory and haemodynamic effects of volume-controlled vs pressure-controlled ventilation during laparoscopy: a cross-over study with echocardiographic assessment. Br J Anaesth 2007; 99: 429-435. [DOI:10.1093/bja/aem166]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


© 2020 All Rights Reserved | International Journal of Reproductive BioMedicine

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb