The Experts below are selected from a list of 255 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Prabhat Rawal - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • In Vitro Study of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Artifacts of Anesthetic Devices
    Medical Journal of Shree Birendra Hospital, 2016
    Co-Authors: Uday Bajracharya, Prabhat Rawal
    Abstract:

    Introduction: Deep sedation or general anesthesia is usually required for Magnetic Resonance Imaging when patients cannot remain motionless in the suite. Various anesthetic devices have been used to maintain the airway and ventilate the lungs during this period but some of them produce artifacts that pose difficulties in the interpretation of images. The aim of this study was to identify the devices that produced artifacts during Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Methods: Twelve anesthetic devices were considered: oro-pharyngeal airway, naso-pharygeal airway, face mask with Reservoir Bag, nasal cannula, endotracheal tube, disposable Ambu Laryngeal Mask Airway, Laryngeal Mask Airway Unique, Disposable Laryngeal Tube Sonda, i-gel, AmbuBag, Bain Circuit, Jackson Rees Circuit.Magnetic Resonance Imaging was performed with each device placed on the top of a phantom simulator respectively to resemble the position in vivo. Results: The artifacts with Disposable Laryngeal Tube Sonda, Laryngeal Mask Airway Unique and endotracheal tube were related to ferromagnetic material in the pilot valve were similar. No artifacts were found with oro-pharyngeal airway, naso-pharygeal airway, nasal cannula, endo-tracheal tube with pilot valve detached, face masks with Reservoir Bag (metal removed), Ambu Bag (without  Adjustable Pressure Limiting valve), i-gel , disposable  Ambu Laryngeal Mask Airway, Bain Circuit and  Jackson Rees Circuit. Conclusions: Anesthetic devices not containing any ferromagnetic material are recommended for use during MRI scanning to reduce artifacts.

  • In vitro study of Magnetic Resonance Imaging artifacts of anesthetic devices
    Journal of Society of Anesthesiologists of Nepal, 2015
    Co-Authors: Uday Bajracharya, Prabhat Rawal
    Abstract:

    Background: Deep sedation or general anesthesia is usually required for Magnetic Resonance Imaging when patients cannot remain motionless in the suite. Various anesthetic devices have been used to maintain the airway and ventilate the lungs during this period. Some of them produce artifacts that pose difficulties in the interpretation of images. The aim of this study was to identify the devices that produced artifacts during Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Methods: Twelve anesthetic devices were considered: oro-pharyngeal airway, nasopharygeal airway, face mask with Reservoir Bag, nasal cannula, endotracheal tube, disposable Ambu Laryngeal Mask Airway, Laryngeal Mask Airway Unique, Disposable Laryngeal Tube Sonda, i-gel, Ambu Bag, Bain Circuit, Jackson Rees Circuit. Magnetic Resonance Imaging was performed with each device placed on the top of a phantom simulator respectively to resemble the position in vivo. Results: The artifacts with Disposable Laryngeal Tube Sonda, Laryngeal Mask Airway Unique and endotracheal tube were related to ferromagnetic material in the pilot valve and were similar. No artifacts were found with oro-pharyngeal airway, nasopharygeal airway, nasal cannula, endo-tracheal tube with pilot valve detached, face masks with Reservoir Bag (metal removed), Ambu Bag (without Adjustable Pressure Limiting valve), i-gel , disposable Ambu Laryngeal Mask Airway, Bain Circuit and Jackson Rees Circuit. Conclusion: Anesthetic devices that produce Magnetic Resonance Imaging artifacts are disposable Laryngeal Tube Sonda, Laryngeal Mask Airway Unique and Endotracheal Tube. Journal of Society of Anesthesiologists of Nepal 2015; 2(1): 13-16

  • In vitro study of Magnetic Resonance Imaging artifacts of anesthetic
    2015
    Co-Authors: Prabhat Rawal
    Abstract:

    Background: Deep sedation or general anesthesia is usually required for Magnetic Resonance Imaging when patients cannot remain motionless in the suite. Various anesthetic devices have been used to maintain the airway and ventilate the lungs during this period. Some of them produce artifacts that pose difficulties in the interpretation of images. The aim of this study was to identify the devices that produced artifacts during Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Methods: Twelve anesthetic devices were considered: oro-pharyngeal airway, nasopharygeal airway, face mask with Reservoir Bag, nasal cannula, endotracheal tube, disposable Ambu Laryngeal Mask Airway, Laryngeal Mask Airway Unique, Disposable Laryngeal Tube Sonda, i-gel, Ambu Bag, Bain Circuit, Jackson Rees Circuit. Magnetic Resonance Imaging was performed with each device placed on the top of a phantom simulator respectively to resemble the position in vivo. Results: The artifacts with Disposable Laryngeal Tube Sonda, Laryngeal Mask Airway Unique and endotracheal tube were related to ferromagnetic material in the pilot valve and were similar. No artifacts were found with oro-pharyngeal airway, nasopharygeal airway, nasal cannula, endo-tracheal tube with pilot valve detached, face masks with Reservoir Bag (metal removed), Ambu Bag (without Adjustable Pressure Limiting valve), i-gel , disposable Ambu Laryngeal Mask Airway, Bain Circuit and Jackson Rees Circuit.

  • AN OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF SAN Original Article In vitro study of Magnetic Resonance Imaging artifacts of anesthetic
    2015
    Co-Authors: A Peer, Uday Bajracharya, Reviewed Journal, Prabhat Rawal
    Abstract:

    Background: Deep sedation or general anesthesia is usually required for Magnetic Resonance Imaging when patients cannot remain motionless in the suite. Various anesthetic devices have been used to maintain the airway and ventilate the lungs during this period. Some of them produce artifacts that pose difficulties in the interpretation of images. The aim of this study was to identify the devices that produced artifacts during Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Methods: Twelve anesthetic devices were considered: oro-pharyngeal airway, naso-pharygeal airway, face mask with Reservoir Bag, nasal cannula, endotracheal tube

Samir Jaber - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Comparison of three high flow oxygen therapy delivery devices: a clinical physiological cross-over study.
    Minerva Anestesiologica, 2013
    Co-Authors: Gerald Chanques, F Riboulet, N. Molinari, J. Carr, Boris Jung, A. Prades, F Galia, E. Futier, J. Constantin, Samir Jaber
    Abstract:

    Aim: High-flow-oxygen-therapy is provided by various techniques and patient interfaces, resulting in various inspired-fraction of oxygen (FiO2) and airway-pressure levels. However, tracheal measurements have never been performed.Methods: Three oxygen-delivery-devices were evaluated: 1) standard-high-flow-oxygen-facemask with Reservoir-Bag, 2) Optiflow(TM)-high-flow-nasal-cannulae and 3) Boussignac(TM)-oxygen-therapy-system. Main judgment criteria were airway-pressure and FiO2 measured in the trachea. The three devices were randomly evaluated in cross-over in 10 Intensive-Care-Unit patients using three oxygen flow-rates (15, 30 and 45 L/min) and two airway-tightness conditions (open and closed mouth). Airway-pressures and FiO2 were measured by a tracheal-catheter inserted through the hole of a tracheotomy tube. Comfort was evaluated by self-reporting. Data are presented as median [25-75th].Results: 1) Regarding oxygen-delivery devices, BoussignacTM provided the highest mean tracheal pressure (13.9 [10.4-14.5] cmH20) compared to Optiflow(TM) (2 [1-2.3] cmH2O, P

Mark Ambrose - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Microbubble Generation and Transmission of Medtronic’s Affinity Hardshell Venous Reservoir and Collapsible Venous Reservoir Bag: An In-Vitro Comparison
    The journal of extra-corporeal technology, 2011
    Co-Authors: Kieron C. Potger, Darryl Mcmillan, Mark Ambrose
    Abstract:

    Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) has been integral to the success of cardiac surgery by supporting the patient’s circulation during the procedure. While mortality rates have been declining, neurological injury remains an increasingly important complication especially as cardiac patients are becoming older and sicker (1). Etiologies of post cardiac surgery neurological injuries include hypoperfusion, systemic inflammatory response, and emboli (2). Microemboli are implicated as a major mechanism of neurological injury – particularly postoperative cognitive decline (3–5). Most microemboli occurring during cardiac surgery are gaseous (6) with many originating from the extracorporeal circuit (ECC) as microbubbles (7,8). Sources of microbubbles derived from the ECC are varied and include entrained venous air (8), vent return, (9) and injections by the perfusionist (10). Ideally, the ECC should remove all introduced air. However, despite the air removal capabilities of the venous Reservoir, oxygenator, and arterial filter, microbubbles continue to pass via the arterial line into the patient’s brain (8,10). Therefore, further improvements in the air handling capabilities of ECC components are warranted. The venous Reservoir is the first component in the ECC designed to remove introduced air. Two kinds of venous Reservoirs are currently used: a more popular rigid, hard-shell venous Reservoir (HSVR) and a soft-shell collapsible venous Reservoir Bag (SSVR) (11). Although studies have investigated the air handling capabilities of various HSVR and SSVR models (8,12–14), no known study has been published comparing an SSVR with an HSVR. To determine if an SSVR was as safe as an HSVR in terms of relative microbubble generation and transmission of introduced air, the Medtronic collapsible venous Reservoir Bag and Medtronic Affinity hardshell venous Reservoir were compared in-vitro over a range of volumes and flow rates.

  • microbubble generation and transmission of medtronic s affinity hardshell venous Reservoir and collapsible venous Reservoir Bag an in vitro comparison
    The journal of extra-corporeal technology, 2011
    Co-Authors: Kieron C. Potger, Darryl Mcmillan, Mark Ambrose
    Abstract:

    Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) has been integral to the success of cardiac surgery by supporting the patient’s circulation during the procedure. While mortality rates have been declining, neurological injury remains an increasingly important complication especially as cardiac patients are becoming older and sicker (1). Etiologies of post cardiac surgery neurological injuries include hypoperfusion, systemic inflammatory response, and emboli (2). Microemboli are implicated as a major mechanism of neurological injury – particularly postoperative cognitive decline (3–5). Most microemboli occurring during cardiac surgery are gaseous (6) with many originating from the extracorporeal circuit (ECC) as microbubbles (7,8). Sources of microbubbles derived from the ECC are varied and include entrained venous air (8), vent return, (9) and injections by the perfusionist (10). Ideally, the ECC should remove all introduced air. However, despite the air removal capabilities of the venous Reservoir, oxygenator, and arterial filter, microbubbles continue to pass via the arterial line into the patient’s brain (8,10). Therefore, further improvements in the air handling capabilities of ECC components are warranted. The venous Reservoir is the first component in the ECC designed to remove introduced air. Two kinds of venous Reservoirs are currently used: a more popular rigid, hard-shell venous Reservoir (HSVR) and a soft-shell collapsible venous Reservoir Bag (SSVR) (11). Although studies have investigated the air handling capabilities of various HSVR and SSVR models (8,12–14), no known study has been published comparing an SSVR with an HSVR. To determine if an SSVR was as safe as an HSVR in terms of relative microbubble generation and transmission of introduced air, the Medtronic collapsible venous Reservoir Bag and Medtronic Affinity hardshell venous Reservoir were compared in-vitro over a range of volumes and flow rates.

Kaur Jasvinder - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Tight Reservoir Bag: the Bag itself may be the culprit
    Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, 2010
    Co-Authors: Goneppanavar Umesh, Kaur Jasvinder
    Abstract:

    Numerous possibilities exist which may cause obstruction to ventilation under anesthesia resulting in a tight Reservoir Bag with low compliance. We report an interesting case where a Reservoir Bag twisted around its own neck and resulted in a tight Bag situation. The neck portion of the Reservoir Bag would be hidden from the view of anesthesiologists in head and neck surgery and hence it is easier to miss early recognition of the twist. We caution all anesthesiologists using the disposable modified Jackson-Rees breathing system to be aware of such an eventuality. We also urge the manufacturer to consider strengthening the neck of the Reservoir Bag by improving the quality of the material used for its construction.

Uday Bajracharya - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • In Vitro Study of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Artifacts of Anesthetic Devices
    Medical Journal of Shree Birendra Hospital, 2016
    Co-Authors: Uday Bajracharya, Prabhat Rawal
    Abstract:

    Introduction: Deep sedation or general anesthesia is usually required for Magnetic Resonance Imaging when patients cannot remain motionless in the suite. Various anesthetic devices have been used to maintain the airway and ventilate the lungs during this period but some of them produce artifacts that pose difficulties in the interpretation of images. The aim of this study was to identify the devices that produced artifacts during Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Methods: Twelve anesthetic devices were considered: oro-pharyngeal airway, naso-pharygeal airway, face mask with Reservoir Bag, nasal cannula, endotracheal tube, disposable Ambu Laryngeal Mask Airway, Laryngeal Mask Airway Unique, Disposable Laryngeal Tube Sonda, i-gel, AmbuBag, Bain Circuit, Jackson Rees Circuit.Magnetic Resonance Imaging was performed with each device placed on the top of a phantom simulator respectively to resemble the position in vivo. Results: The artifacts with Disposable Laryngeal Tube Sonda, Laryngeal Mask Airway Unique and endotracheal tube were related to ferromagnetic material in the pilot valve were similar. No artifacts were found with oro-pharyngeal airway, naso-pharygeal airway, nasal cannula, endo-tracheal tube with pilot valve detached, face masks with Reservoir Bag (metal removed), Ambu Bag (without  Adjustable Pressure Limiting valve), i-gel , disposable  Ambu Laryngeal Mask Airway, Bain Circuit and  Jackson Rees Circuit. Conclusions: Anesthetic devices not containing any ferromagnetic material are recommended for use during MRI scanning to reduce artifacts.

  • In vitro study of Magnetic Resonance Imaging artifacts of anesthetic devices
    Journal of Society of Anesthesiologists of Nepal, 2015
    Co-Authors: Uday Bajracharya, Prabhat Rawal
    Abstract:

    Background: Deep sedation or general anesthesia is usually required for Magnetic Resonance Imaging when patients cannot remain motionless in the suite. Various anesthetic devices have been used to maintain the airway and ventilate the lungs during this period. Some of them produce artifacts that pose difficulties in the interpretation of images. The aim of this study was to identify the devices that produced artifacts during Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Methods: Twelve anesthetic devices were considered: oro-pharyngeal airway, nasopharygeal airway, face mask with Reservoir Bag, nasal cannula, endotracheal tube, disposable Ambu Laryngeal Mask Airway, Laryngeal Mask Airway Unique, Disposable Laryngeal Tube Sonda, i-gel, Ambu Bag, Bain Circuit, Jackson Rees Circuit. Magnetic Resonance Imaging was performed with each device placed on the top of a phantom simulator respectively to resemble the position in vivo. Results: The artifacts with Disposable Laryngeal Tube Sonda, Laryngeal Mask Airway Unique and endotracheal tube were related to ferromagnetic material in the pilot valve and were similar. No artifacts were found with oro-pharyngeal airway, nasopharygeal airway, nasal cannula, endo-tracheal tube with pilot valve detached, face masks with Reservoir Bag (metal removed), Ambu Bag (without Adjustable Pressure Limiting valve), i-gel , disposable Ambu Laryngeal Mask Airway, Bain Circuit and Jackson Rees Circuit. Conclusion: Anesthetic devices that produce Magnetic Resonance Imaging artifacts are disposable Laryngeal Tube Sonda, Laryngeal Mask Airway Unique and Endotracheal Tube. Journal of Society of Anesthesiologists of Nepal 2015; 2(1): 13-16

  • AN OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF SAN Original Article In vitro study of Magnetic Resonance Imaging artifacts of anesthetic
    2015
    Co-Authors: A Peer, Uday Bajracharya, Reviewed Journal, Prabhat Rawal
    Abstract:

    Background: Deep sedation or general anesthesia is usually required for Magnetic Resonance Imaging when patients cannot remain motionless in the suite. Various anesthetic devices have been used to maintain the airway and ventilate the lungs during this period. Some of them produce artifacts that pose difficulties in the interpretation of images. The aim of this study was to identify the devices that produced artifacts during Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Methods: Twelve anesthetic devices were considered: oro-pharyngeal airway, naso-pharygeal airway, face mask with Reservoir Bag, nasal cannula, endotracheal tube