ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Performance of first and second generation supraglottic airway devices in patients with simulated difficult airway: a randomised controlled trial
1
Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Istanbul Bilim University, Turkey
2
Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, AOU Policlinico Vittorio Emanuele Catania, Italy
Publication date: 2019-12-27
Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther 2019;51(5):373-379
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
Guidelines for management of unanticipated difficult intubation recommend the use of supraglottic airway devices (SADs) in cases of failed intubation. However, there is a lack of comparative studies for different type of devices. In this randomised controlled trial, the performance of 1st and 2nd generation supraglottic airway devices was compared in patients with a simulated difficult airway.
Material and methods:
We enrolled 90 patients, scheduled for elective surgery and suitable for supraglottic airway device insertion. Laryngeal mask airway (LMA)-classic (LMAC), LMA-proseal (LMAP) and LMA-flexible (LMAF) were evaluated. The modified Mallampati test was used for the preoperative airway assessment. Maximal mouth opening, body mass index, thyromental and sternomental distances, and neck circumference were measured, and patients with predicted difficulty were excluded. Insertion time, ease of insertion, oropharyngeal leak pressure, and Brimacombe and Berry Bronchoscopy Scores were evaluated. Peak airway pressure was measured at 1, 15 and 60 min following the insertion of SADs. Complications were recorded.
Results:
Oropharyngeal leak pressures were 35.2 ± 8.1, 31.7 ± 7.7 and 31.3 ± 6.0 mm Hg for LMAP, LMAC and LMAF respectively (P = 0.079). First min peak airway pressure values were 14.0 ± 4.2, 15.0 ± 3.9, 14.9 ± 4.4 mm Hg respectively (P = 0.403). There was a significant positive correlation between oropharyngeal leak pressure and first min peak airway pressure (r = 0.264, P = 0.013). Mean number of attempts was 1.1 ± 0.3 times (P = 0.840). Insertion time was 20.0 ± 10.4, 17.0 ± 5.7 and 16.4 ± 10.2 s respectively (P = 0.440). Ease of insertion score was 2.0 ± 0.9, 2.1 ± 0.9 and 2.1 ± 1.3 respectively (P = 0.837). There was no significant difference for optimization manoeuvre requirement or fibreoptic scope grades (P = 0.265, P = 0.651, respectively).
Conclusions:
First and second generation of supraglottic airway devices provided similar clinical performance for patients with difficult airway and trauma due to limited cervical motion.
Guidelines for management of unanticipated difficult intubation recommend the use of supraglottic airway devices (SADs) in cases of failed intubation. However, there is a lack of comparative studies for different type of devices. In this randomised controlled trial, the performance of 1st and 2nd generation supraglottic airway devices was compared in patients with a simulated difficult airway.
Material and methods:
We enrolled 90 patients, scheduled for elective surgery and suitable for supraglottic airway device insertion. Laryngeal mask airway (LMA)-classic (LMAC), LMA-proseal (LMAP) and LMA-flexible (LMAF) were evaluated. The modified Mallampati test was used for the preoperative airway assessment. Maximal mouth opening, body mass index, thyromental and sternomental distances, and neck circumference were measured, and patients with predicted difficulty were excluded. Insertion time, ease of insertion, oropharyngeal leak pressure, and Brimacombe and Berry Bronchoscopy Scores were evaluated. Peak airway pressure was measured at 1, 15 and 60 min following the insertion of SADs. Complications were recorded.
Results:
Oropharyngeal leak pressures were 35.2 ± 8.1, 31.7 ± 7.7 and 31.3 ± 6.0 mm Hg for LMAP, LMAC and LMAF respectively (P = 0.079). First min peak airway pressure values were 14.0 ± 4.2, 15.0 ± 3.9, 14.9 ± 4.4 mm Hg respectively (P = 0.403). There was a significant positive correlation between oropharyngeal leak pressure and first min peak airway pressure (r = 0.264, P = 0.013). Mean number of attempts was 1.1 ± 0.3 times (P = 0.840). Insertion time was 20.0 ± 10.4, 17.0 ± 5.7 and 16.4 ± 10.2 s respectively (P = 0.440). Ease of insertion score was 2.0 ± 0.9, 2.1 ± 0.9 and 2.1 ± 1.3 respectively (P = 0.837). There was no significant difference for optimization manoeuvre requirement or fibreoptic scope grades (P = 0.265, P = 0.651, respectively).
Conclusions:
First and second generation of supraglottic airway devices provided similar clinical performance for patients with difficult airway and trauma due to limited cervical motion.
REFERENCES (28)
1.
Kheterpal S, Healy D, Aziz MF, et al.; Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group (MPOG) Perioperative Clinical Research Committee. Incidence, predictors, and outcome of difficult mask ventilation combined with difficult laryngoscopy: a report from the multicenter perioperative outcomes group. Anesthesiology 2013; 119: 1360-1369. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000435832.39353.20.
2.
Cook TM, MacDougall-Davis SR. Complications and failure of airway management. Br J Anaesth 2012; 109: 68-85. doi: 10.1093/bja/aes393.
3.
Asai T. Is it safe to use supraglottic airway in children with difficult airways? Br J Anaesth 2014;112: 620-622. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeu005.
4.
Cook TM, Silsby J, Simpson TP. Airway rescue in acute upper airway obstruction using a ProSeal Laryngeal mask airway and an Aintree catheter: a review of the ProSeal Laryngeal mask airway in the management of the difficult airway. Anaesthesia 2005; 60: 1129-1136. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2005.04370.x.
5.
Apfelbaum JL, Hagberg CA, Caplan RA, et al.; American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. ASA practice guidelines for management of the difficult airway: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. Anesthesiology 2013; 118: 251-270. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31827773b2.
6.
Frerk C, Mitchell VS, McNarry AF, et al. Difficult Airway Society intubation guidelines working group. Difficult Airway Society 2015 guidelines for management of unanticipated difficult intubation in adults. Br J Anaesth 2015; 115: 827-848. doi: 10.1093/bja/aev371.
7.
Frova G, Sorbello M. Algorithms for difficult airway management: a review. Minerva Anestesiol 2009; 75: 201-209.
8.
Sorbello M, Petrini F. Supraglottic airway devices: the search for the best insertion technique or the time to change our point of view? Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim 2017; 45: 76-82. doi: 10.5152/TJAR. 2017.67764.
9.
Sorbello M. Evolution of supraglottic airway devices: the Darwinian perspective. Minerva Anestesiol 2018; 84: 297-300. doi: 10.23736/S0375-9393.18.12680-0.
10.
Theiler LG, Kleine-Brueggeney M, Kaiser D, et al. Crossover comparison of the laryngeal mask supreme and the i-gel in simulated difficult airway scenario in anesthetized patients. Anesthesiology 2009; 111: 55-62. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181a4c6b9.
11.
Kus A, Gok CN, Hosten T, Gurkan Y, Solak M, Toker K. The LMA-Supreme versus the I-gel in simulated difficult airway in children: a randomised study. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2014; 31: 280-284.
12.
Goutcher CM, Lochhead V. Reduction in mouth opening with semi-rigid cervical collars. Br J Anaesth 2005; 95: 344-348. doi: 10.1093/bja/aei190.
13.
Cook TM, Woodall N, Frerk C; Fourth National Audit Project. Major complication of airway management in the UK: results of the Fourth National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anesthetists and the Difficult Airway Society. Part 1: anesthesia. Br J Anaesth 2011; 106: 617-631. doi: 10.1093/bja/aer058.
14.
Goldmann K, Hechtfischer C, Malik A, Kussin A, Freisburger C. Use of ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in 2114 adult patients: a prospective study. Anesth Analg 2008; 107: 1856-1861. doi: 10.1213/ane. 0b013e318189ac84.
15.
Das B, Mitra S, Samanta A, Samal RK. A comparative study of three methods of ProSeal laryngeal mask airway insertion in children with simulated difficult laryngoscopy using a rigid neck collar. Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwan 2014; 52: 110-113. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aat.....
16.
Park SK, Choi GJ, Choi YS, Ahn EJ, Kang H. Comparison of the i-gel and the laryngeal mask airway proseal during general anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0119469. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119469.
17.
Pinosky ML, Hardin CL, Bach DE, Shuman K. The reinforced laryngeal mask airway (LMA) as an alternative airway device to manage the difficult airway. Pediatr Dent 1998; 20: 422-424.
18.
Sorbello M, Zdravkovic I. Time to monitor cuff pressures and to start “thinking supraglottic”. Minerva Anestesiol 2018; 84: 124-125. doi: 10.23736/S0375-9393.17.12094-8.
19.
Tian Y, Wu XY, Li L, Ma L, Li YF. A clinical trial evaluating the laryngeal mask airway-Supreme in obese children during general anesthesia. Arch Med Sci 2017; 13: 183-190. doi: 10.5114/aoms.2017.64719.
20.
Brimacombe J, Berry A. A proposed fiber-optic scoring system to standardize the assessment of laryngeal mask airway position. Anesth Analg 1993; 76: 457.
21.
Alexander CA. A modified Intavent laryngeal mask for ENT and dental anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 1990; 45: 892-893. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1990.tb14601.x.
22.
Xu R, Lian Y, Li WX. Airway complications during and after general anesthesia: a comparison, systematic reviewand meta-analysis of using flexible laryngeal mask airways and endotracheal tubes. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0158137. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158137.
23.
Keller C, Brimacombe J, Bittersohl J, Lirk P, von Goedecke A. Aspiration and the laryngeal mask airway: three cases and a review of the literature. Br J Anaesth 2004; 93: 579-582. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeh228.
24.
Nekhendzy V, Ramaiah VK, Collins J, Lemmens HJ, Most SP. The safety and efficacy of the use of the flexible laryngeal mask airway with positive pressure ventilation in elective ENT surgery: a 15-year retrospective single-center study. Minerva Anestesiol 2017; 83: 947-955. doi: 10.23736/S0375-9393.17.11403-3.
25.
Cook TM, Lee G, Nolan JP. The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: a review of the literature. Can J Anesth 2005; 52: 739-760. doi: 10.1007/BF03016565.
26.
Keller C, Brimacombe J. Mucosal pressure and oropharyngeal leak pressure with the Proseal versus laryngeal mask airway in anaesthetized paralysed patients. Br J Anaesth 2000; 85: 262-266. doi: 10.1093/bja/85.2.262.
27.
Brimacombe J, Keller C. Comparison of the flexible and standard laryngeal mask airways. Can J Anesth 1999; 46: 558-563. doi: 10.1007/BF03013546.
28.
Sorbello M, Petrini F. Airway spider or airway spiders? Anaesthesia 2018; 73: 953-954. doi: 10.1111/anae.14292.
Share
| eISSN: | 1731-2531 |
| ISSN: | 1642-5758 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
