SummaryThe Laryngeal Mask Airway Flexible TM (LMA Flexible) has been widely utilised for dental, ophthalmology and otorhinolaryngology-related procedures. Our study evaluates two different techniques of inserting the LMA Flexible for patients undergoing day-case dental surgery. One hundred and eight patients were randomly assigned into two groups based on the LMA Flexible insertion technique -either laryngoscopy-guided (n = 54) or digital manipulation (standard technique; n = 54). Patient and airway characteristics were recorded before induction of anaesthesia. The primary outcome was success rate at first insertion. Other outcomes assessed included fibreoptic assessment of laryngeal mask airway placement, haemodynamic changes, need for airway adjustment during surgery and sore throat. The success rate of insertion on the first attempt was higher for the laryngoscopy-assisted technique compared with the standard technique (96.3% vs 81.5%, respectively, p < 0.05). Fibreoptic assessment showed that the former group had better placement of the laryngeal mask airway than the latter (59.3% vs 37% p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups for haemodynamic changes. Sore throat was more common in the group with the standard technique (35.2% vs 16.7%, p < 0.05). Our study suggests the use of the laryngoscope to guide insertion of the LMA Flexible for dental surgery is a better option compared with the standard technique of digital manipulation. Laryngeal Mask Co. Limited, Mahe, Seychelles) has been widely used for dental, head and neck-related surgery [1][2][3]. The cuff portion is identical to the classic version of the LMA, but the LMA Flexible has a long and nonrigid flexometallic tube, which may make insertion more challenging. This unique design allows greater movement of the tube without displacement of the cuff or loss of seal. The head and neck may be turned with a decreased risk of airway dislodgement during surgery. Studies have detailed its usefulness compared with tracheal intubation in dental day surgery patients [4,5], but few studies have examined different techniques of insertion. Therefore, we evaluated the use of a laryngoscopy-guided technique as an alternative to the standard technique of digital manipulation for insertion of the LMA Flexible, in adult patients presenting for day-case dental surgery.

SummaryA randomised, prospective trial was conducted to assess the efficacy of various means of alleviating the pain of subcutaneous lidocaine infiltration. One hundred and twenty-two patients were randomly allocated to different groups to receive buffered lidocaine 1%, warmed lidocaine 1% or infiltration by the counter-irritation technique. A visual analogue pain score was recorded at different stages of cannulation and results showed that pain scores were significantly lower in the group receiving buffered lidocaine 1% (p`0.02) and in the counter-irritation group (p`0.05). Thus buffering lidocaine 1% and administration of lidocaine 1% by the counter-irritation technique is effective in relieving the pain of lidocaine infiltration.Keywords Anaesthetic, local; lidocaine. Procedures, venepuncture. ...................................................................................... Correspondence to: Dr E. L. Ong Accepted: 27 February 1999 It is common practice for anaesthetists to use a subcutaneous infiltration of lidocaine to alleviate the pain of venepuncture with a cannula. While previous studies have shown this to be less painful than insertion of a cannula, even one as small as 22-gauge [1], the pain associated with lidocaine infiltration has at times led to debate about this procedure. It was, therefore, the need to alleviate the 'lidocaine sting' that prompted this study, which compares various means of reducing this pain. Well-tested methods include alkalinisation of lidocaine with sodium bicarbonate solution and warming the lidocaine to body temperature. A less well-known method, counter-irritation, has been suggested to be effective [2]. Previous studies with volunteers have performed testing on the forearm [3, 4], this study aims to test the efficacy of these pain-reducing methods on the dorsum of the hand of patients, which is the common site of venous cannulation. A previous study has shown that the skin sensitivity of different parts of the arm vary with the dorsum of the hand being less sensitive than the volar aspect of the arm. If this is the case it may not be necessary to go to lengths to alleviate lidocaine sting [5]. MethodsAfter approval by the hospital ethics committee and informed consent, 122 unpremedicated ASA grade I and II patients were enrolled into the study. Exclusion criteria included allergy to local anaesthetics and pregnancy. The patients were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups. Groups A and D received 1% lidocaine at room temperature (20 ЊC) as was the standard practice. Group B received 1% lidocaine buffered by adding 8.4% sodium bicarbonate in the ratio of 1-10 of lidocaine. Group C received 1% lidocaine warmed to 37 ЊC by means of a thermostatically controlled water bath available in all operating theatres.The dorsum of the nondominant hand was cleansed with an alcohol swab and allowed to dry. A quantity (0.5 ml) of the prepared solution in a 2.5-ml syringe was infiltrated subcutaneously via a 27-gauge needle over 5 s. In group D, counter-irritation ...

This study was undertaken to compare laryngoscopic-guided LMA insertion with a standard insertion technique. A total of 149 patients undergoing elective general surgical and orthopaedic procedures were randomly divided into two groups. Study endpoints included ease of insertion, haemodynamic changes, local trauma bleeding, and postoperative sore throat. There were no statistically significant differences found. The laryngoscope may aid laryngeal mask airway insertion in some circumstances. FIGURE 1: Blood pressure and heart rate changes between the two groups during induction and at 1 and 5 minutes after LMA insertion.

Propofol is frequently associated with pain on injection. Previous studies have suggested that chilling of the propofol decreases pain significantly. This prospective, randomised, double-blind trial was designed to assess the effectiveness of cold propofol compared with propofol premixed with lignocaine in minimising pain on injection. Patients were allocated to one of four groups: propofol + lignocaine 0.1 mg.kg-1, propofol + lignocaine 0.2 mg.kg-1, cold propofol and a control group consisting of propofol premixed with normal saline and maintained at room temperature. The results of this study show that cold propofol is associated with a very high incidence of injection pain while lignocaine 0.1 mg.kg-1 premixed with propofol significantly decreases the incidence of pain (p < 0.001). Increasing the dosage of lignocaine above 0.1 mg.kg-1, however, does not significantly decrease the incidence of pain further. The addition of lignocaine also significantly decreases the incidence of excitatory side-effects.

No abstract