Correlation and variation of cuff inflating volumes and pressures in different adult models of laryngeal mask: a prospective randomized trial

Narut Ruananukun, Jittiya Watcharotayangul, Suchaya Jeeranukosol, Rojnarin Komonhirun, Narut Ruananukun, Jittiya Watcharotayangul, Suchaya Jeeranukosol, Rojnarin Komonhirun

Abstract

Background: Hyperinflation of laryngeal mask cuffs may carry the risk of airway complications. The manufacturer recommends inflating cuff until the intracuff pressure reaches 60 cmH2O, or inflate with the volume of air to not exceed the maximum recommended volume. We prospectively assessed the correlation of cuff inflating volumes and pressures, and the appropriated the cuff inflating volumes to generate an intracuff pressure of 60 cmH2O in the adult laryngeal masks from different manufacturers.

Methods: Two groups of 80 patients requiring laryngeal mask size 3 and 4 during general anesthesia were randomized into 4 subgroups for each size of the laryngeal mask: Soft Seal® (Portex®), AuraOnce™ (Ambu®), LMA-Classic™ (Teleflex®) and LMA-ProSeal™ (Teleflex®). After insertion, the cuff was inflated with 5-ml increments of air up to the maximum recommended volume. After each 5-ml intracuff pressure was measured, the volume of air that generated the intracuff pressure of 60 cmH2O was recorded.

Results: Mean (SD) volume of air required to achieve the intracuff pressure of 60 cmH2O in Soft Seal®, AuraOnce™, LMA-Classic™, LMA-ProSeal™ laryngeal mask size 3 were 11.80(1.88), 9.20(1.88), 8.95(1.50) and 13.50(2.48) ml, respectively, and these volumes in laryngeal mask size 4 were 14.45(4.12), 12.55(1.85), 11.30(1.95) and 18.20(3.47) ml, respectively. The maximum recommended volume resulted in high intracuff pressures (> 60 cmH2O) in all laryngeal mask types and sizes studied.

Conclusion: Pressure-volume curves of adult laryngeal masks are all in sigmoidal shape. Cuff designs and materials can effect pressure and volume correlation. Approximately half of the maximum recommended volume is required to achieve the intracuff pressure of 60 cmH2O except LMA-ProSeal™ which required two-thirds of the maximum recommended volume.

Trial registration: Thai Clinical Trials Registry, TCTR20150602001, May 28, 2015.

Keywords: Cuff inflating volume; Intracuff pressure; Laryngeal mask.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
CONSORT Flow Diagram; LM = laryngeal mask
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Closed system manometer
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Pressure-volume curves for the four types of laryngeal mask size 3: Soft Seal® (), AuraOnce™ (), LMA-Classic™ (), LMA-ProSeal™ ()
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Pressure-volume curves for the four types of laryngeal mask size 4: Soft Seal® (), AuraOnce™ (), LMA-Classic™ (), LMA-ProSeal™ ()

References

    1. L’Hermite J, Dubout E, Bouvet S, Bracoud LH, Cuvillon P, Coussaye JE, et al. Sore throat following three adult supraglottic airway devices: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2017;34:417–424. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000539.
    1. Burgard G, Möllhoff T, Prien T. The effect of laryngeal mask cuff pressure on postoperative sore throat incidence. J Clin Anesth. 1996;8:198–201. doi: 10.1016/0952-8180(95)00229-4.
    1. Inomata S, Nishikawa T, Suga A, Yamashita S. Transient bilateral vocal cord paralysis after insertion of a laryngeal mask airway. Anesthesiology. 1995;82:787–788. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199503000-00023.
    1. Lloyd JFR, Hegab A. Recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy after laryngeal mask airway insertion. Anaesthesia. 1996;51:171–172. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1996.tb07707.x.
    1. Nagai K, Sakuramoto C, Goto F. Unilateral hypoglossal nerve paralysis following the use of the laryngeal mask airway. Anaesthesia. 1994;49:603–604. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1994.tb14230.x.
    1. Rosenberg MK, Rontal E, Rontal M, Lebenbom-Mansour M. Arytenoid cartilage dislocation caused by a laryngeal mask airway treated with chemical splinting. Anesth Analg. 1996;83:1335–1336. doi: 10.1213/00000539-199612000-00037.
    1. Ambu Incorporated . AuraOnce™ disposable laryngeal mask: general information. 2013.
    1. Teleflex Incorporated . LMA™ airway portfolio. 2014.
    1. Smiths Medical International Ltd . The Portex® soft seal® laryngeal mask. 2011.
    1. Asai T, Brimacombe J. Cuff volume and size selection with the laryngeal mask. Anaesthesia. 2000;55:1179–1184. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2044.2000.01624.x.
    1. Marjot R. Pressure exerted by the laryngeal mask airway cuff upon the pharyngeal mucosa. Br J Anaesth. 1993;70:25–29. doi: 10.1093/bja/70.1.25.
    1. Wallace CJ, Chambers NA, Erb TO, von Ungern-Sternberg BS. Pressure volume curves of paediatric laryngeal mask airways. Anaesthesia. 2009;64:527–531. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05819.x.
    1. Maino P, Dullenkopf A, Keller C, Bernet-Buettiker V, Weiss M. Cuff filling volumes and pressures in pediatric laryngeal mask airways. Paediatr Anaesth. 2006;16:25–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2005.01672.x.
    1. Ghai B, Sethi S, Ram J, Wig J. Cuff filling volumes for pediatric classic laryngeal mask airways: comparison of clinical end points versus adjusted cuff pressure. Paediatr Anaesth. 2013;23:122–126. doi: 10.1111/pan.12023.
    1. Keller C, Pühringer F, Brimacombe JR. Influence of cuff volume on oropharyngeal leak pressure and fibreoptic position with the laryngeal mask airway. Br J Anaesth. 1998;81:186–187. doi: 10.1093/bja/81.2.186.
    1. Keller C, Brimacombe J, Benzer A. Calculated vs measured pharyngeal mucosal pressure with the laryngeal mask airway during cuff inflation: assessment of four locations. Br J Anaesth. 1999;82:399–401. doi: 10.1093/bja/82.3.399.
    1. Jeeranukosol S, Ruananukun N, Watcharotayangul J. Correlation and variation of cuff inflating volumes and pressures in the adult laryngeal mask airways. Thai J Anesthesiol. 2014;40(4):233–234.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner