The effects of laryngeal mask airway versus endotracheal tube on atelectasis in patients undergoing general anesthesia assessed by lung ultrasound: A protocol for a prospective, randomized controlled trial

1Citations
Citations of this article
29Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background The incidence of atelectasis is high in patients undergoing general anesthesia. This may cause oxygenation impairment and further contribute to postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). As important airway management devices for general anesthesia, few studies have compared the effects of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) and endotracheal tube (ETT) on atelectasis. Additionally, lung ultrasound has been increasingly used for bedside atelectasis diagnosis. For the above considerations, this trial is designed to compare the effects of LMA and ETT on atelectasis assessed by lung ultrasound scores, further providing more powerful clinical evidence for perioperative respiratory management of non-laparoscopic elective lower abdominal surgery under general anesthesia. Methods This is a prospective, single-center, single-blind, randomized controlled trial. From July 2021 to July 2022, 180 patients undergoing elective non-laparoscopic lower abdominal surgery under general anesthesia will be recruited and randomly divided into the ETT and LMA groups at a ratio of 1:1. The primary outcome is the total atelectasis LUS of 12 lung regions 15 min after the establishment of the artificial airway. The total atelectasis LUS at the end of surgery and 30 min after extubation, oxygenation index, postoperative airway complications, PPCs, and length of stay will be analyzed as secondary indicators.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Li, X., Liu, B., Wang, Y., Xiong, W., Zhang, Y., Bao, D., … Jin, X. (2022). The effects of laryngeal mask airway versus endotracheal tube on atelectasis in patients undergoing general anesthesia assessed by lung ultrasound: A protocol for a prospective, randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE, 17(9 9). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273410

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free