Article Sidebar
Published:
Apr 23, 2019DOI:
10.4314/ahs.v19i1.47Keywords:
Article Details
While African Health Sciences has been freely accessible online there have been questions on whether it is Open Access or not. We wish to clearly state that indeed African Health Sciences is Open Access. There are key issues regarding Open Access needing clarification for avoidance of doubt:
- 1. Henceforth, papers in African Health Sciences will be published under the CC BY (Creative Commons Attribution License) 4.0 International. See details on https://creativecomons.org/)
- 2. The copyright owners or the authors grant the 3rd party (perpetually and in advance) the right to disseminate, reproduce, or use the research papers in part or in full, format/medium as long as:
- No substantive errors are introduced in the process
- Attribution of authorship and correct citation details are given
- The referencing details are not changed.
Should the papers be reproduced in part, this must be clearly stated.
- 3. The papers will be freely and universally accessible online in an easily readable format such as XML in at least one widely recognized open access repository such as PUBMED CENTRAL.
B. ABRIDGED LICENCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN AUTHORS AND African Health Sciences
I submitted my manuscript to African Health Sciences and would like to affirm that:
1.0 I am authorized by my co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
2.0 I guarantee, on behalf of self and co-authors:
- That the paper is original, and has not been published in any other peer-reviewed journal; nor is it under consideration by other journal (s). It does not infringe existing copyright or any other person’s rights
- That we are/I am the sole author(s) of the paper and with authority to enter into this agreement. My granting rights to African Health Sciences is not in breach of any other obligation
- That the paper contains nothing unlawful, or libelous. Nor anything that would constitute a breach of contract, confidence or commitment given to secrecy, if published
- That I/we have taken care to ensure the integrity of the article.
3.0 I and all co-authors, agree that the paper, if accepted for publication, shall be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0. (see https://creativecommons.org/)
Main Article Content
A randomised controlled trial of the effect of laryngeal mask airway manometry on postoperative sore throat in spontaneously breathing adult patients presenting for surgery at a university teaching hospital
Abstract
Background: Laryngeal mask airways (LMAs) are widely used in anaesthesia and are considered to be generally safe. Postop- erative sore throat (POST) is a frequent complication following LMA use and can be very distressing to patients. The use of an LMA cuff pressure of between 30 and 32cm of H20 in alleviating post-operative sore throat has not been investigated.
Objective: To compare the occurrence of POST between the intervention group in which LMA cuff pressures were adjusted to 30-32cm of H20 and the control group in which only monitoring of LMA cuff pressures was done, to compare the severity of POST between the two study groups and to compare the LMA cuff pressures between the two study groups.
Methods: Eighty consenting adult patients scheduled to receive general anaesthesia with use of an LMA were randomized into two groups of 40 patients each. Intervention group: LMA airway cuff pressures were adjusted to 30 to 32cm of H20. Con- trol group: Only had LMA cuff pressures monitored throughout the surgery. All patients were interviewed postoperatively at two, six and twelve hours. Data of their baseline characteristics, occurrence and severity of POST was collected. If POST was present; a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) was used to assess the severity. Cuff pressures between the two study groups were also determined.
Results: The baseline demographic characteristics of the participants were similar. The use of manometry to limit LMA AMBU® AuraOnce™ intracuff pressure to 30-32cm H2O reduced POST in surgical patient’s by 62% at 2 hours and 6 hours (Risk Ratio 0.38 95%CI 0.21-0.69)in the intervention group. The median POST pain score in the intervention group was significantly lower than the control group with scores of 0 at 2, 6 and 12 hours post operatively. Routine practice of LMA cuff inflation by anes- thesiologists is variable, and the intracuff pressures in the control group were higher than in the intervention group. (P<0.001)
Conclusion: Among this population, reduction of LMA AMBU® AuraOnce™ intracuff pressure to 30-32cm H2O reduces the occurrence and severity of POST. The LMA cuff pressures should be measured routinely using manometry and reducing the intracuff pressures to 30-32 cm of H20 recommended as best practice.
Keywords: Laryngeal mask airway manometry, sore throat, surgery.
