Comparison of the clinical performance of the flexible laryngeal mask airway in pediatric patients under general anesthesia with or without a muscle relaxant: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Sung Hye Byun, Soo Jin Kim, Eugene Kim, Sung Hye Byun, Soo Jin Kim, Eugene Kim

Abstract

Background: The insertion of a laryngeal mask airway (LMA) is difficult in children due to the unique features of their airways. Muscle relaxants have been reported to facilitate LMA insertion in adults; however, there is a lack of evidence supporting this in children. This trial is designed to assess the feasibility of LMA insertion with and without the use of muscle relaxants in pediatric patients under general anesthesia.

Methods/design: This is a prospective, double-blind, single-center, parallel-arm, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial to be conducted with participants aged 2-7 years who are undergoing elective ophthalmic surgery under general anesthesia. Participants are randomly assigned to one of two groups based on whether muscle relaxants are used (MR group, n = 64) or not used (Saline group, n = 64) prior to LMA insertion. The primary outcome is the oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) at a fixed gas flow of 3 L/min. The secondary outcomes are intubation time for successful insertion, ease of insertion and mask bagging, intubation attempt for successful insertion, successful insertion rate on the first attempt, fiberoptic view of the LMA position, postoperative complications, and changes in hemodynamic and ventilatory parameters.

Discussion: We will compare the OLPs to determine whether the muscle relaxant provides better conditions for the manipulation of the LMA. This is the first randomized controlled trial to investigate whether muscle relaxants are beneficial to the clinical performance of LMA insertion in pediatric patients under general anesthesia. This trial will be a resource for improving the process and safety of pediatric LMA insertion under general anesthesia.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03487003 . Registered on 18 April 2018.

Keywords: Flexible laryngeal mask airway; Muscle relaxant; Oropharyngeal leak pressure; Pediatric airway; Rocuronium.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

As indicated in the section “Study design,” Institutional Review Board of Daegu Catholic University Medical Center approved this research protocol (version 1.2, reference number: CR-18-027, validated in 18 April, 2018). This trial is conducted according to the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. As indicated in the “Methods” section, we will obtain written informed consents from all the legal guardians or parents of the participants prior to any study-related procedures.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
SPIRIT flow diagram: schedule of enrollment, interventions, and assessments. *Including mean blood pressure and heart rate, † Including ventilator parameter changes such as peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) and expiratory tidal volume to set tidal volume ratio (TVe/TVs) before and at the end of surgery, ‡including respiratory adverse events (coughing, laryngospasm, bronchospasm, postoperative stridor, and desaturation; SpO2 <95%), gastric insufflation, excessive secretion, postoperative nausea and vomiting, sore throat and bloody tinge on the LMA surface; T1 at preoperative waiting area, T2 after the loss of consciousness is achieved, T3 insertion of LMA, T4 cessation of anesthetics, T5 extubation, T6 PACU arrival, T7 PACU discharge. mYPAS modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale, BIS bispectral index, ETsevo % end-tidal sevoflurane concentration, TOF train of four, OLP oropharyngeal leak pressure, FOB fiberoptic bronchoscopy, FLACC Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
CONSORT flow chart

References

    1. von Ungern-Sternberg BS, Boda K, Chambers NA, et al. Risk assessment for respiratory complications in paediatric anaesthesia: a prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2010;376:773–783. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61193-2.
    1. Tartari S, Fratantonio R, Bomben R, et al. Laryngeal mask vs tracheal tube in pediatric anesthesia in the presence of upper respiratory tract infection. Minerva Anestesiol. 2000;66:439–443.
    1. Luce V, Harkouk H, Brasher C, et al. Supraglottic airway devices vs tracheal intubation in children: a quantitative meta-analysis of respiratory complications. Paediatr Anaesth. 2014;24:1088–1098. doi: 10.1111/pan.12495.
    1. Kundra P, Deepak R, Ravishankar M. Laryngeal mask insertion in children: a rational approach. Paediatr Anaesth. 2003;13:685–690. doi: 10.1046/j.1460-9592.2003.01134.x.
    1. Ghai B, Wig J. Comparison of different techniques of laryngeal mask placement in children. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2009;22:400–404. doi: 10.1097/ACO.0b013e3283294d06.
    1. Tsujimura Y. Downfolding of the epiglottis induced by the laryngeal mask airway in children: a comparison between two insertion techniques. Paediatr Anaesth. 2001;11:651–655. doi: 10.1046/j.1460-9592.2001.00749.x.
    1. McNicol LR. Insertion of laryngeal mask airway in children. Anaesthesia. 1991;46:330. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1991.tb11537.x.
    1. Fujiwara A, Komasawa N, Nishihara I, et al. Muscle relaxant effects on insertion efficacy of the laryngeal mask ProSeal((R)) in anesthetized patients: a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Anesth. 2015;29:580–584. doi: 10.1007/s00540-015-1982-3.
    1. Gong YH, Yi J, Zhang Q, Xu L. Effect of low dose rocuronium in preventing ventilation leak for flexible laryngeal mask airway during radical mastectomy. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8:13616–13621.
    1. Hattori K, Komasawa N, Miyazaki Y, et al. Muscle relaxant facilitates i-gel insertion by novice doctors: a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Clin Anesth. 2016;33:218–222. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2016.03.058.
    1. Chen BZ, Tan L, Zhang L, Shang YC. Is muscle relaxant necessary in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery with a ProSeal LMA? J Clin Anesth. 2013;25:32–35. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2012.06.004.
    1. Eikermann M, Renzing-Kohler K, Peters J. Probability of acceptable intubation conditions with low dose rocuronium during light sevoflurane anaesthesia in children. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2001;45:1036–1041. doi: 10.1034/j.1399-6576.2001.450819.x.
    1. Meakin GH. Role of muscle relaxants in pediatric anesthesia. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2007;20:227–231. doi: 10.1097/ACO.0b013e328108f430.
    1. Kain ZN, Mayes LC, Cicchetti DV, et al. The Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale: how does it compare with a “gold standard”? Anesth Analg. 1997;85:783–788. doi: 10.1213/00000539-199710000-00012.
    1. Keller C, Puhringer 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. Timmermann A, Cremer S, Eich C, et al. Prospective clinical and fiberoptic evaluation of the Supreme laryngeal mask airway. Anesthesiology. 2009;110:262–265.
    1. Watcha MF, Ramirez-Ruiz M, White PF, et al. Perioperative effects of oral ketorolac and acetaminophen in children undergoing bilateral myringotomy. Can J Anaesth. 1992;39:649–654. doi: 10.1007/BF03008224.
    1. Merkel SI, Voepel-Lewis T, Shayevitz JR, Malviya S. The FLACC: a behavioral scale for scoring postoperative pain in young children. Pediatr Nurs. 1997;23:293–297.
    1. Drake-Brockman TF, Ramgolam A, Zhang G, et al. The effect of endotracheal tubes versus laryngeal mask airways on perioperative respiratory adverse events in infants: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2017;389:701–708. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31719-6.
    1. Kim E, Yang SM, Yoon SJ, et al. The effects of water lubrication of tracheal tubes on post-intubation airway complications: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2016;17:562. doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1699-0.
    1. Aldrete JA. The post-anesthesia recovery score revisited. J Clin Anesth. 1995;7:89–91. doi: 10.1016/0952-8180(94)00001-K.
    1. Ikeda A, Isono S, Sato Y, et al. Effects of muscle relaxants on mask ventilation in anesthetized persons with normal upper airway anatomy. Anesthesiology. 2012;117:487–493. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3182668670.
    1. Keller C, Brimacombe J. Influence of neuromuscular block, mode of ventilation and respiratory cycle on pharyngeal mucosal pressures with the laryngeal mask airway. Br J Anaesth. 1999;83:480–482. doi: 10.1093/bja/83.3.480.
    1. 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.
    1. Lee JR, Kim MS, Kim JT, et al. A randomised trial comparing the i-gel (TM) with the LMA Classic (TM) in children. Anaesthesia. 2012;67:606–611. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2012.07072.x.
    1. Fukuhara A, Okutani R, Oda Y. A randomized comparison of the i-gel and the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in pediatric patients: performance and fiberoptic findings. J Anesth. 2013;27:1–6. doi: 10.1007/s00540-012-1477-4.
    1. Gasteiger L, Brimacombe J, Oswald E, et al. LMA ProSeal(TM) vs. i-Gel(TM) in ventilated children: a randomised, crossover study using the size 2 mask. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2012;56:1321–1324. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2012.02765.x.
    1. Tulgar S, Boga I, Cakiroglu B, Thomas DT. Short-lasting pediatric laparoscopic surgery: are muscle relaxants necessary? Endotracheal intubation vs. laryngeal mask airway. J Pediatr Surg. 2017;52:1705–1710. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2017.02.010.

Source: PubMed

3
订阅