Head elevation by 3 vs. 6 cm in ProSeal laryngeal mask airway insertion: a randomized controlled trial

Mi-Jung Yun, Jung-Won Hwang, Sung-Hoon Kim, Hyo-Ju Hong, Young-Tae Jeon, Hee-Pyoung Park, Mi-Jung Yun, Jung-Won Hwang, Sung-Hoon Kim, Hyo-Ju Hong, Young-Tae Jeon, Hee-Pyoung Park

Abstract

Background: The sniffing position (neck flexion by head elevation and head extension) is commonly used for insertion of a laryngeal mask airway. However, the appropriate degrees of head elevation and head extension are unclear. In the present study, the success rate of ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway (LMA ProSeal) insertion using two degrees of head elevation was evaluated.

Methods: This prospective randomized, controlled study included 80 adult patients aged 18 to 90 years. In the 3 cm (n = 40) and 6 cm (n = 40) groups, the LMA ProSeal was inserted while the head was elevated 3 cm and 6 cm, respectively, using a pillow of the corresponding height. The success rate, and incidence of blood staining on cuff, sore throat and hoarseness were assessed. The alignments of laryngeal and oral axes were also evaluated.

Results: The first attempt success rate was higher in the 3 cm than the 6 cm group (87 % vs. 60 %, P = 0.014). In 86 % of patients in the 6 cm group and 50 % of patients in the 3 cm group in whom the second attempt failed, the third insertion attempt was successful by using a pillow height of the opposite group. The alignments of the two axes were not different between the two groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusions: The first attempt success rate of ProSeal laryngeal mask insertion was higher with 3 cm than 6 cm head elevation in adult patients.

Trial registration: Identifiers: NCT02058030 (08/05/2015), Unique Protocol ID: phdkim1.

Keywords: Airway; Head position; LMA; PLMA.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram generated in accordance with CONSORT 2010 guidelines
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The airway axes, angle of ventral neck(VA): an imaginary line of neck parallel to the long axis of patient’s neck, oral axis(OA) : and imaginary midline perpendicular to the line between the upper and lower lip

References

    1. Takenaka I, Aoyama K, Iwagaki T, Ishimura H, Kadoya T. The sniffing position provides greater occipito-atlanto-axial angulation than simple head extension: a radiological study. Can J Anaesth. 2007;54:129–33. doi: 10.1007/BF03022009.
    1. Horton WA, Fahy L, Charters P. Defining a standard intubating position using “angle finder”. Br J Anaesth. 1989;62:6–12. doi: 10.1093/bja/62.1.6.
    1. LMA ProSeal™ Instruction Manual. San Diego: LMA North America; 2005. . Accessed Aug 2016.
    1. Brimacombe J, Berry A. Laryngeal mask airway insertion. A comparison of the standard versus neutral position in normal patients with a view to its use in cervical spine instability. Anaesthesia. 1993;48:670–1. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1993.tb07176.x.
    1. Jun JH, Baik HJ, Kim JH, Kim YJ, Chang RN. Comparison of the ease of laryngeal mask airway ProSeal insertion and the fiberoptic scoring according to the head position and the presence of a difficult airway. Korean J Anaesthsiol. 2011;60:244–9. doi: 10.4097/kjae.2011.60.4.244.
    1. Lopez-Gil M, Brimacombe J, Keller C. A comparison of four methods for assessing oropharyngeal leak pressure with the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) in paediatric patients. Paediatr Anaesth. 2001;11:319–21. doi: 10.1046/j.1460-9592.2001.00649.x.
    1. Brimacomb J, Keller C, Kurian S, Myles J. Reliability of epigastric auscultation to detect gastric insufflation. Br J Anaesth. 2002;88:127–9. doi: 10.1093/bja/88.1.127.
    1. Boidin MP. Airway patency in the unconscious patient. Br J Anaesth. 1985;57:306–10. doi: 10.1093/bja/57.3.306.
    1. Miller RD, Pardo M, Stoelting RK. Airway management. In: Miller RD, Pardo MC, editors. Basics of anesthesia. 6. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2011. pp. 219–51.
    1. Park SH, Park HP, Jeon YT, Hwang JW, Kim JH, Bahk JH. A comparison of direct laryngoscopic views depending on pillow height. J Anaesth. 2010;24:526–30. doi: 10.1007/s00540-010-0962-x.

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel