A Comparison between a Two Person Insertion Technique of Laryngeal Mask Airway and the Classic One Person Technique

Asef Parviz Kazemi, Mohammad Ali Daneshforooz, Shahriar Omidvari

Background: Various studies are seeking to find new methods to improve techniques of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion and reduce possible complications. In this study, we embarked on a clinical study to investigate the advantages of a new insertion method of laryngeal mask and to compare it with the classic method.

Materials and Methods: Two hundred patients aged 20-60 years old in 2012 were randomly divided into two groups allocated to receive either the new technique of insertion of LMA (two-person method) or the classic method (one-person method). In the two person method, jaw thrust and mouth opening is done by a technician and then anesthesiologist inserts the LMA. Oxygen saturation, time to insert laryngeal mask, end-tidal carbon dioxide pressure, and the ease of insertion in both groups were measured. The collected data were analyzed by using ANOVA test. P-value< 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results: The measured end-tidal pressure of carbon dioxide (ETCO2) and saturation of O2 were 31.68 mmHg and 98.87 % in the classic method and 30.47 mmHg and 99.42 % in the two-person method, respectively. These differences were statistically significant for both values. However, the discrepancy of insertion time and ease of insertion between the two groups were not statistically considerable.

Conclusion: The new technique introduced in this study is associated with higher rate of success, as evidenced by enhancement of saturation of O2 and reduction of ETCO2. Therefore, this method could be considered as a safe and effective method in order to establish a secure airway in anesthetized patients in future studies.

laryngeal mask airway; carbon dioxide; oxygen saturation; Technique

Koay CK, Yoong CS, Kok P. A randomized trial comparing two laryngeal mask airway insertion techniques. Anaesth intensive Care. 2001;29: 613-5.

Brain AIJ, Verghese C, Strube PJ. The LMA ‘ProSeal’—a laryngeal mask with an oesophageal vent. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2000; 84(5): 650-654.

Brodrick PM, Webster NR, Nunn JF. The laryngeal mask airway. Anaesthesia. 1989; 44(3): 238-241.

Peterson GN, Domino KB, Caplan RA, Posner KL, Lee LA, Cheney FW. Management of the difficult airway: a closed claims analysis. Anesthesiology.2005;103(1):33-39.

Henderson JJ, Popat MT, Latto IP, Pearce AC. Difficult Airway Society guidelines for management of the unanticipated difficult intubation. Anaesthesia.2004;59(7):675-694.

John RE, Hill S, Hughes TJ. Airway protection by laryngeal mask airway. A barrier to dye placed in the pharynx. Anaesthesia. 1991;46:366-7.

Brimacombe J. Analysis of 1500 Laryngeal mask uses by one anaesthetist in adults undergoing routine anaesthesia. Anaesthesia. 1996;51:76-80.

Soh CR, Ng ASB. Laryngeal mask airway insertion in paediatricanaesthesia: comparison between the reverse and standard technique. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2001;29:515-9.

Nakayama S, Yoshiko O, Yamashita M. the rotational technique with a partially inflated laryngeal mask airway improves the ease of insertion in children. paediatr Anaesth. 2002;12:416-9.

Mason DG, Bingham RM. The laryngeal mask airway in children. Anaesthesia. 1990;45:760-3.

Wakeling HG, Butler PJ, Baxter PJ. The laryngeal mask airway: a comparison between two insertion techniques. Anaesth Analg. 1997;85: 687-90.

Navaratnam S, Tayler S. The laryngeal mask- another insertion technique. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1993;21:250.

Ng A, Raitt DG, Smith G. Induction of anaesthesia and insertion of a laryngeal maskairway in the prone position for minor surery. Anesth Analg. 2002;94:1194-8.

Brain AIJ. Studies on the laryngeal mask:first learn the art. Anaesthesia. 1991;46:417-8.

Dingeman RS, Coumnerova LC, Goobie SM. The use of laryngeal mask airway for emergent airway management in a prone child. Anesth Analg. 2005;100:670-1.

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.