Background. This study was designed to assess and compare the effect of head and neck position on the oropharyngeal leak pressures and cuff position (employing fibreoptic view of the glottis) and ventilation scores between ProSeal LMA and the I-gel. Material and Methods. After induction of anesthesia, the supraglottic device was inserted and ventilation confirmed. The position of the head was randomly changed from neutral to flexion, extension, and lateral rotation (left). The oropharyngeal leak pressures, fibreoptic view of glottis, ventilation scores, and delivered tidal volumes and end tidal CO2 were noted in all positions. Results. In both groups compared with neutral position, oropharyngeal leak pressures were significantly higher with flexion and lower with extension but similar with rotation of head and neck. However the oropharyngeal leak pressure was significantly higher for ProSeal LMA compared with the I-gel in all positions. Peak airway pressures were significantly higher with flexion in both groups (however this did not affect ventilation), lower with extension in ProSeal group, and comparable in I-gel group but did not change significantly with rotation of head and neck in both groups. Conclusion. Effective ventilation can be done with both ProSeal LMA and I-gel with head in all the above positions. ProSeal LMA has a better margin of safety than I-gel due to better sealing pressures except in flexion where the increase in airway pressure is more with the former. Extreme precaution should be taken in flexion position in ProSeal LMA.

No abstract

Background: Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) is an acute metabolic healthcare crisis in patients with diabetes mellitus. The current study aimed to compare the effectiveness of rapid-acting insulin analog administered subcutaneously with regular insulin infused intravenously among the DKA patients. Methodology:In this prospective open labelled study, 100 consecutive DKA patients were randomly assigned to two groups. Group 1 patients were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and treated with intravenous regular insulin infusion. Group 2 patients were managed in the emergency medical ward with subcutaneous rapid-acting insulin. Response to the therapy was assessed by the follow-up investigations of the biochemical parameters, including blood glucose concentration, serum ketones, pH, serum electrolytes including bicarbonates, sodium and potassium concentration until the resolution of DKA. Furthermore, the overall duration of therapy (blood glucose level < 250 mg/dl), time and amount of insulin administered until the resolution of DKA, were also assessed. Results: The baseline clinical and biochemical parameters were similar between the two treatment groups except for blood glucose and sodium concentration. The mean random blood sugar (RBS), acid-base parameters and concentration of ketone bodies were significantly improved from admission until the resolution of DKA. There was no significant difference in the duration of therapy (p=0.07). While the time and amount of insulin therapy required until resolution of DKA were significantly reduced among the patients treated subcutaneously with rapid-acting insulin, i.e. 16.36 ± 6.92 hrs and 59.28 ± 30.05 units (p<0.05). Conclusion:The patients with less complicated DKA can be managed with rapid-acting insulin analog in the medical wards obviating the need for admission to the ICU. With relatively better outcomes, it is an effective alternative to regular intravenous insulin infusion for DKA resolution.