Effect of Paralysis at the Time of ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway Insertion on Pharyngolaryngeal Morbidities. A Randomized Trial

Hyo-Seok Na, Young-Tae Jeon, Hyun-Jung Shin, Ah-Young Oh, Hee-Pyoung Park, Jung-Won Hwang, Hyo-Seok Na, Young-Tae Jeon, Hyun-Jung Shin, Ah-Young Oh, Hee-Pyoung Park, Jung-Won Hwang

Abstract

Neuromuscular block results in the loss of muscular tone in the upper airway, which might contribute to the increased postoperative airway morbidity followed by ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) insertion. We compared the pharyngolaryngeal discomfort exerted by the PLMA according to the neuromuscular block. One hundred sixty patients undergoing surgery for breast disease or inguinal hernia were anesthetized with propofol and remifentanil by target controlled infusion. Rocuronium 0.6 mg/kg (NMBA group, n = 80) or normal saline (No-NMBA group, n = 80) was administered after the loss of consciousness, and one anesthesiologist inserted the PLMA. Postoperative pharyngolaryngeal discomfort was evaluated at postoperative 1 h. Traumatic event was recorded based on the blood trace on the surface of the PLMA cuff. Insertion time, insertion attempt number, sealing pressure, and fiberoptic brochoscopic grades were evaluated. Patients' characteristics and the PLMA insertion condition (insertion time, successful insertion attempt number, fiberoptic bronchoscopic grade, and sealing pressure) were similar between the two groups. The PLMA can be successfully inserted in non-paralyzed patients with less postoperative pharyngolaryngeal discomfort than when a neuromuscular blocking agent is used (13.8% vs. 30.0%, P = 0.021). The incidence of traumatic events is also reduced when no neuromuscular blocking agent is used (16.3% vs. 32.5%, P = 0.026). Regardless of whether or not a surgical procedure requires muscular relaxation, there is no need to administer neuromuscular blocking agents solely for the purpose of PLMA insertion.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01035021.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1. Flow chart of patient enrollment.
Fig 1. Flow chart of patient enrollment.

References

    1. Yu SH, Beirne OR (2010) Laryngeal mask airways have a lower risk of airway complications compared with endotracheal intubation: a systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 68: 2359–2376. 10.1016/j.joms.2010.04.017
    1. Radu AD, Miled F, Marret E, Vigneau A, Bonnet F (2008) Pharyngo-laryngeal discomfort after breast surgery: comparison between orotracheal intubation and laryngeal mask. Breast 17: 407–411. 10.1016/j.breast.2007.11.033
    1. Kwak HJ, Kim JY, Kim YB, Chae YJ, Kim JY (2008) The optimum bolus dose of remifentanil to facilitate laryngeal mask airway insertion with a single standard dose of propofol at induction in children. Anaesthesia 63: 954–958. 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05544.x
    1. Lee MP, Kua JS, Chiu WK (2001) The use of remifentanil to facilitate the insertion of the laryngeal mask airway. Anesth Analg 93: 359–362.
    1. Brimacombe J, Keller C (2000) The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: A randomized, crossover study with the standard laryngeal mask airway in paralyzed, anesthetized patients. Anesthesiology 93: 104–109.
    1. Shin WJ, Cheong YS, Yang HS, Nishiyama T (2010) The supraglottic airway I-gel in comparison with ProSeal laryngeal mask airway and classic laryngeal mask airway in anaesthetized patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol 27: 598–601. 10.1097/EJA.0b013e3283340a81
    1. Fabregat-Lopez J, Garcia-Rojo B, Cook TM (2008) A case series of the use of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in emergency lower abdominal surgery. Anaesthesia 63: 967–971. 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05539.x
    1. Lu PP, Brimacombe J, Yang C, Shyr M (2002) ProSeal versus the Classic laryngeal mask airway for positive pressure ventilation during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Anaesth 88: 824–827.
    1. Cook TM, Lee G, Nolan JP (2005) The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: a review of the literature. Can J Anaesth 52: 739–760.
    1. Chen BZ, Tan L, Zhang L, Shang YC (2013) Is muscle relaxant necessary in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery with a ProSeal LMA? J Clin Anesth 25: 32–35. 10.1016/j.jclinane.2012.06.004
    1. Maltby JR, Beriault MT, Watson NC, Liepert D, Fick GH (2002) The LMA-ProSeal is an effective alternative to tracheal intubation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Can J Anaesth 49: 857–862.
    1. Hemmerling TM, Beaulieu P, Jacobi KE, Babin D, Schmidt J (2004) Neuromuscular blockade does not change the incidence or severity of pharyngolaryngeal discomfort after LMA anesthesia. Can J Anaesth 51: 728–732.
    1. Brimacombe J, Keller C, Fullekrug B, Agro F, Rosenblatt W, Dierdorf SF, et al. (2002) A multicenter study comparing the ProSeal and Classic laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized, nonparalyzed patients. Anesthesiology 96: 289–295.
    1. Hwang JW, Park HP, Lim YJ, Do SH, Lee SC, Jeon YT (2009) Comparison of two insertion techniques of ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: standard versus 90-degree rotation. Anesthesiology 110: 905–907. 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31819b5d40
    1. Keller C, Brimacombe J, Puhringer F (2000) A fibreoptic scoring system to assess the position of laryngeal mask airway devices. Interobserver variability and a comparison between the standard, flexible and intubating laryngeal mask airways. Anasthesiologie, Intensivmedizin, Notfallmedizin, Schmerztherapie: AINS 35: 692–694.
    1. Chui PT, Cheam EW (1998) The use of low-dose mivacurium to facilitate insertion of the laryngeal mask airway. Anaesthesia 53: 491–495.
    1. Evans RG, Crawford MW, Noseworthy MD, Yoo SJ (2003) Effect of increasing depth of propofol anesthesia on upper airway configuration in children. Anesthesiology 99: 596–602.
    1. Shorten GD, Opie NJ, Graziotti P, Morris I, Khangure M (1994) Assessment of upper airway anatomy in awake, sedated and anaesthetised patients using magnetic resonance imaging. Anaesth Intensive Care 22: 165–169.
    1. Nandi PR, Charlesworth CH, Taylor SJ, Nunn JF, Dore CJ (1991) Effect of general anaesthesia on the pharynx. Br J Anaesth 66: 157–162.
    1. Sivarajan M, Joy JV (1996) Effects of general anesthesia and paralysis on upper airway changes due to head position in humans. Anesthesiology 85: 787–793.
    1. Jeon YS, Choi JW, Jung HS, Kim YS, Kim DW, Kim JH, et al. (2011) Effect of continuous cuff pressure regulator in general anaesthesia with laryngeal mask airway. The Journal of international medical research 39: 1900–1907.
    1. Burgard G, Mollhoff T, Prien T (1996) The effect of laryngeal mask cuff pressure on postoperative sore throat incidence. J Clin Anesth 8: 198–201.
    1. Keller C, Brimacombe J (2000) Mucosal pressure and oropharyngeal leak pressure with the ProSeal versus laryngeal mask airway in anaesthetized paralysed patients. Br J Anaesth 85: 262–266.
    1. Goudsouzian NG, Denman W, Cleveland R, Shorten G (1992) Radiologic localization of the laryngeal mask airway in children. Anesthesiology 77: 1085–1089.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi