1887
  1. الرئيسية
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Journal of Emergency Medicine, Trauma and Acute Care
  4. المجلد 2024, العدد 4
  5. المقالة
Volume 2024, Issue 4
  • ISSN: 1999-7086
  • E-ISSN: 1999-7094

ملخص

Difficult mask ventilation occurs due to the inability to form a seal between the patient’s face and the mask. The NuMask® is an intraoral mask with a flange that forms a seal against the buccal gum line. We aimed to compare the intraoral mask and conventional face mask for ventilation of the lungs of patients under general anesthesia.

This randomized crossover study was conducted on 40 adults who were not anticipated to be difficult to mask ventilate. In Group CI, mask ventilation was done using a conventional face mask for 1 min and then an intraoral mask for 1 min. In Group IC, mask ventilation was done using an intraoral mask first and then a conventional face mask. An anesthesia ventilator was used to deliver pressure-controlled ventilation with a target pressure of 15 cm H2 and a respiratory rate of 10 bpm during mask ventilation. The primary outcome was expired minute volume obtained using both devices.

The expired minute volume using conventional face mask was 6328 ± 2509 mL in Group CI (Conventional Intraoral) and 6289 ± 1735 mL in Group IC (Intraoral Conventional) ( = 0.954). The expired minute volume using intraoral mask was 6154 ± 1905 mL in Group CI and 6501 ± 2013 mL in Group IC ( = 0.578). Overall, expired minute volume was comparable using conventional face mask and intraoral mask, i.e., 6308 ± 2129 and 6328 ± 1942 mL, respectively ( = 0.93). The end-tidal carbon dioxide during mask ventilation was also similar ( = 0.107). There was no trauma to face, lips, gums, or teeth in any patient.

Both conventional face mask and intraoral mask were comparable for the ventilation of the lungs of patients without anticipated difficult mask ventilation under general anesthesia.

© 2024 Gaur, Bhalotra, Desai, Licensee HBKU Press.
Loading

جارٍ تحميل قياسات المقالة...

/content/journals/10.5339/jemtac.2024.24
٢٠٢٤-٠٨-٢٠
٢٠٢٤-٠٩-٠٦
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jemtac/2024/4/jemtac.2024.24.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5339/jemtac.2024.24&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Lim JS, Cho YC, Kwon OY, Chung SP, Yu K, Kim SW. Precise minute ventilation delivery using a bag-valve mask and audible feedback. Am J Emerg Med. 2012; 30:(7):1068-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2011.07.003
     [Google الباحث العلمي]
  2. Gerstein NS, Carey MC, Braude DA, Tawil I, Petersen TR, Deriy L, et al. Efficacy of facemask ventilation techniques in novice providers. J Clin Anesth. 2013; 25:(3):193-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2012.10.009
     [Google الباحث العلمي]
  3. Bauman EB, Joffe AM, Lenz L, DeVries SA, Hetzel S, Seider SP. An evaluation of bag-valve-mask ventilation using an ergonomically designed facemask among novice users: a simulation-based pilot study. Resuscitation. 2010; 81:(9):1161-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.05.005
     [Google الباحث العلمي]
  4. Coule P, Mazzoli A, Todaro J. 465: Comparison of a novel intra-oral mask (NuMask(r)) to standard mask ventilation using a cadaver model. Ann Emerg Med. 2010; 3:(56):S150-1.
    [Google الباحث العلمي]
  5. Langeron O, Masso E, Huraux C, Guggiari M, Bianchi A, Coriat P, et al. Prediction of difficult mask ventilation. Anesthesiology. 2000; 92:(5):1229-36. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200005000-00009
     [Google الباحث العلمي]
  6. Yildiz TS, Solak M, Toker K. The incidence and risk factors of difficult mask ventilation. J Anesth. 2005; 19:(1):7-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-004-0275-z
     [Google الباحث العلمي]
  7. Kheterpal S, Han R, Tremper KK, Shanks A, Tait AR, O’Reilly M, et al. Incidence and predictors of difficult and impossible mask ventilation. Anesthesiology. 2006; 105:(5):885-91. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200611000-00007
     [Google الباحث العلمي]
  8. Khan M, Siddiqui AS, Raza SA, Samad K. Incidence and predictors of difficult mask ventilation in high-risk adult population scheduled for elective surgery: a prospective observational study. Cureus. 2022; 14:(2):e22002. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.22002
     [Google الباحث العلمي]
  9. Nimmagadda U, Salem MR, Voronov D, Knezevic NN. The NuMask® is as effective as the face mask in achieving maximal preoxygentation. Middle East J Anaesthesiol. 2016; 23:(6):605-9.
    [Google الباحث العلمي]
  10. Amack AJ, Barber GA, Ng PC, Smith TB, April MD. Comparison of ventilation with one-handed mask seal with an intraoral mask versus conventional cuffed face mask in a cadaver model: a randomized crossover trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2017; 69:(1):12-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.04.017
     [Google الباحث العلمي]
  11. McCrory B, Lowndes BR, Thompson DL, Miller EE, Riggle JD, Wadman MC, et al. Workload comparison of intraoral mask to standard mask ventilation using a cadaver model. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, September 2012. Los Angeles, CA:SAGE Publications;2012. p. 1728-32.
    [Google الباحث العلمي]
  12. McCrory B, Lowndes BR, Thompson DL, Wadman MC, Sztajnkrycer MD, Walker R, et al. Crossover assessment of intraoral and cuffed ventilation by emergency responders. Mil Med. 2019; 184:(Suppl 1):310-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usy304
     [Google الباحث العلمي]
  13. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med. 2010; 8:18. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-8-18
     [Google الباحث العلمي]
  14. Nance B, Wallace G, Farr J, Sakata D, Pace N. Comparison of ventilation with the NuMask® vs. traditional mask, a prospective, randomized, crossover study. Anesthesia Analgesia. 2013; 116:S-15.
    [Google الباحث العلمي]
  15. Numask Inc. Numask news and reviews. 2018[Accessed 03 January 2018]. Available from: https://www.numask.com/?news_reviews
     [Google الباحث العلمي]
  16. Adelborg K, Dalgas C, Grove EL, Jørgensen C, Al-Mashhadi RH, Løfgren B. Mouth-to-mouth ventilation is superior to mouth-to-pocket mask and bag-valve-mask ventilation during lifeguard CPR: a randomized study. Resuscitation. 2011; 82:(5):618-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.01.009
     [Google الباحث العلمي]
  17. Racine SX, Solis A, Hamou NA, Letoumelin P, Hepner DL, Beloucif S, et al. Face mask ventilation in edentulous patients: a comparison of mandibular groove and lower lip placement. Anesthesiology. 2010; 112:(5):1190-3. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181d5dfea
     [Google الباحث العلمي]
  18. Yazicioğlu D, Baran I, Uzumcugil F, Ozturk I, Utebey G, Sayın MM. Oral mask ventilation is more effective than face mask ventilation after nasal surgery. J Clin Anesth. 2016; 31:64-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2015.12.008
     [Google الباحث العلمي]
  19. Alkan M, Aytac I, Guven Aytac B, Unal H, Gursul B, Baskan S, et al. Comparison of intraoral mask and classic face mask in terms of ventilation success and practitioners’ workload assessments: A randomised crossover study. Int J Clin Pract. 2021; 75:(11):e14821. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.14821
     [Google الباحث العلمي]
/content/journals/10.5339/jemtac.2024.24
Loading
Comparison of one-handed ventilation using intraoral mask and conventional face mask: A randomized single-blind crossover study
Journal of Emergency Medicine, Trauma and Acute Care 2024, 24 (٢٠٢٤); https://doi.org/10.5339/jemtac.2024.24
/content/journals/10.5339/jemtac.2024.24
/content/journals/10.5339/jemtac.2024.24
Loading

جارٍ تحميل البيانات والوسائط...

  • نوع المستند: Research Article
الموضوعات الرئيسية anesthesia, conventional face mask, intraoral mask and mask ventilation

الأكثر اقتباسًا لهذا الشهر Most Cited RSS feed

هذه الخانة مطلوبة
يُرجى إدخال عنوان بريد إلكتروني صالح
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error