An Evaluation of Thyromental Distance-based Method or Weight-based Method in Determining the Size of the Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme: A Randomized Controlled Study

Meilin Weng, Ming Ding, Yajun Xu, Xijun Yang, Lihong Li, Jing Zhong, Changhong Miao, Meilin Weng, Ming Ding, Yajun Xu, Xijun Yang, Lihong Li, Jing Zhong, Changhong Miao

Abstract

The successful placement of Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) Supreme in adults largely depends on right selection of its size. Most anesthesiologists determine the size of LMA according to patients' body weight, which does not always work well. An alternative method should be established to guarantee higher efficacy of ventilation through LMA Supreme placement. This controlled study was designed to compare the efficacy of LMA Supreme placement, when the size of it is determined by body weight or by thyromental distance. Eighty healthy individuals with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1 to 2 scheduled for elective ambulatory surgery were randomly allocated into 2 groups: thyromental distance-based group (n = 40) and weight-based group (n = 40). Efficacy of controlled ventilation through LMA, easy of device placement, and pharyngeal sealing were evaluated between the groups. The tidal volume under 10 cm H2O pressure-controlled ventilation in thyromental distance-based group was significantly higher than that in weight-based group (523.9 ± 135.4 vs 477.1 ± 185.6; P = 0.031). The number of patients who achieved "excellent" tidal volume (>8 mL/kg) were significantly more in the thyromental distance-based group (24/40 vs 13/40; P = 0.019). Among overweight patients (body mass index >23), those who achieved "excellent" tidal volume (>8 mL/kg) under 10 cm H2O pressure-controlled ventilation were also more in thyromental distanced-based group than in weight-based group (11/24 vs 2/24; P = 0.031). The time taken for successful insertion was shorter with the thyromental distance-based group compared with the weight-based group (54.6 ± 33.6 vs 87.8 ± 98.9; P = 0.021). Oropharyngeal leak pressure was pretty close between the 2 groups (26.4 ± 5.1 vs 25.0 ± 5.7 cm H2O; P = 0.180). In terms of guaranteeing better positive pressure ventilation, facilitating device placement, and reliable pharyngeal sealing, thyromental distance-based method can be a better option compared with the weight-based method for LMA Supreme size selection.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
For thyromental distance-based group, the thyromental distance was measured by the palm side of a “SIZE 7” hand.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
The longitude of LMA cup. The distance between 2 arrows means the longitude of LMA cup. LMA = laryngeal mask airway.

References

    1. Van Zundert A, Brimacombe J. The LMA Supreme: a pilot study. Anaesthesia 2008; 63:209–210.
    1. Truhlar A, Ferson DZ. Use of the laryngeal mask airway Supreme in pre-hospital difficult airway management. Resuscitation 2008; 78:107–108.
    1. Soar J. The i-gelTM supraglottic airway and resuscitation: some initial thoughts. Resuscitation 2007; 74:197.
    1. Henderson JJ, Popat MT, Latto IP, et al. Difficult airway society guidelines for management of unanticipated difficult intubation. Anaesthesia 2004; 59:675–694.
    1. Benumof JL. Laryngeal mask airway and the ASA difficult algorithm. Anesthesiology 1996; 84:686–699.
    1. Benumof JL. Laryngeal mask airway. Indications and contraindications. Anesthesiology 1992; 77:843–846.
    1. Johnston DF, Wrigley SR, Robb PJ, et al. The laryngeal mask airway in paediatric anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 1990; 45:924–927.
    1. The LMA Supreme Instruction Manual. Maidenhead: Intravent Orthofix Ltd; 2007.
    1. Rommel N, Bellon E, Herman R, et al. Development of orohypopharyngeal cavity in normal infants and young children. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2003; 40:606–611.
    1. Arens R, McDonough JM, Corbin AM, et al. Linear dimensions of the upper airway structure during development: assessment by magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 165:117–122.
    1. Eckel HE, Sittel C. Morphometry of the larynx in horizontal sections. Am J Otolaryngol 1995; 16:40–48.
    1. Zahoor A, Ahmad N, Sereche G, et al. A novel method for laryngeal mask airway size selection in paediatric patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2012; 29:386–390.
    1. Gallart L, Mases A, Martinez J, et al. Simple method to determine the size of the laryngeal mask airway in children. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2003; 20:570–574.
    1. White P, Smith I. Laryngeal Mask Airway, Airway Management: Principles and Practice. Benumof JL, ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1995:353–373.
    1. Keller C, Brimacombe JR, Keller K, et al. Comparison of four methods for assessing airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in adult patients. Br J Anaesth 1999; 82:286–287.
    1. Yao WY, Li SY, Sng BL, et al. The LMA SupremeTM in 700 parturients undergoing cesarean delivery: an observational study. Can J Anesth 2012; 59:648–654.
    1. Sharma V, Verghese C, McKenna PJ. Prospective audit on the use of the LMA SupremeTM for airway management of adult patients undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery in prone position. Br J Anaesth 2010; 105:228–232.
    1. Howes BW, Wharton NM, Gibbison B, et al. LMA SupremeTM insertion by novices in manikins and patients. Anaesthesia 2010; 65:343–347.
    1. Tan BH, Chen EG, Liu EH. An evaluation of the laryngeal mask airway supreme’ in 100 patients. Anaesth Intensive Care 2010; 38:550–554.
    1. Seet E, Rajeev S, Firoz T, et al. Saftey and efficacy of laryngeal mask airway Supreme versus laryngeal mask airway ProsealTM: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2010; 27:602–607.
    1. Thm HM, Tan SM, Woon KL, et al. A comparison of the Supreme laryngeal mask airway with the Proseal laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized paralyzed adult patients: a randomized crossover study. Can J Anesth 2010; 57:672–678.
    1. Lee AK, Tey JB, Lim Y, et al. Comparison of the single-use LMA Supreme with the reusable Proseal LMA for anaesthesia in gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. Anaesth Intensive Care 2009; 37:815–819.
    1. Carron M, Freo U, Ori C. Sensory nerve damage after the use of the LMA SupremeTM. Anesthesiology 2009; 112:1055–1056.
    1. Braude D, Southard A, Bajema T, et al. Rapid sequence airway using the LMA-Supreme as a primary airway for 9 h in a multi-system trauma patient. Resucitation 2010; 81:1217.
    1. Chew EE, Hashim NH, Wang CY. Randomised comparison of the LMA Supreme with the I-Gel in spontaneously breathing anaesthetized adult patients. Anaesth Intensive Care 2010; 38:1018–1022.
    1. Lopez AM, Valero R, Birmacombe J. Insertion and use of the LMA SupremeTM in the prone positon. Anaesthesia 2010; 65:154–157.
    1. Lee AK, Tey JB, Lim Y, et al. Comparison of the single-use LMA Supreme with the reusable Proseal LMA for anaesthesia in gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. Anaesth Intensive Care 2009; 37:815–819.
    1. Timmermann A, Cremer S, Heuer J, et al. Laryngeal mask LMA Supreme application by medical personnel inexperienced in airway management. Anaesthesist 2008; 57:970–975.
    1. Eschertzhuber S, Birmacombe J, Hohlrieder M, et al. The Laryngeal Mask Airway SupremeTM: a single use laryngeal mask airway with an oesophageal vent. A randomized, cross-over study with the Laryngeal Mask Airway ProSealTM in paralysed, anaesthetized patients. Anaesthesia 2009; 64:79–83.
    1. Ali A, Canturk S, Turkmen A, et al. Comparison of the laryngeal mask airway SupremeTM and laryngeal mask airway ClassicTM in adults. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2009; 26:1010–1014.
    1. Cook TM, Gatward JJ, Handel J, et al. Evaluation of the LMA SupremeTM in 100 non-paralysed patients. Anaesthesia 2009; 64:555–562.
    1. Abdi W, Amathieu R, Adhoum A, et al. Sparing the larynx during gynecological laparoscopy: a randomized trial comparing the LMA SupremeTM and the ETT. Acta Anesthesiol Scand 2010; 54:141–146.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj