BackgroundInsertion under laryngoscopic guidance has been used to achieve ideal positioning of the laryngeal mask airway (LMA). However, to date, the efficacy of this technique has been evaluated only using fiberoptic evaluation, and the results have been conflicting. Other reliable tests to evaluate the efficacy of this technique have not been established. Recently, it has been suggested that the accuracy of LMA placement can be determined by clinical signs such as oropharyngeal leak pressure (OPLP). The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of LMA insertion under laryngoscopic guidance using OPLP as an indicator.MethodsAfter approved by the institutional ethics committee, a prospective comparison of 100 patients divided into 2 groups (50 with blind technique and 50 with the laryngoscope technique) were evaluated. An LMA (LarySeal™, Flexicare medical Ltd., UK) was inserted using the blind approach in the blind insertion group and using laryngoscopy in the laryngoscope-guided insertion group. The OPLP, fiberoptic position score, whether the first attempt at LMA insertion was successful, time taken for insertion, ease of LMA insertion, and adverse airway events were recorded.ResultsData were presented as mean ± standard deviation. The OPLP was higher in the laryngoscope-guided insertion group than in the blind insertion group (21.4 ± 8.6 cmH2O vs. 18.1 ± 6.1 cmH2O, p = 0.031). The fiberoptic position score, rate of success in the first attempt, ease of insertion, and pharyngolaryngeal adverse events were similar between both groups. The time taken for insertion of the LMA was significantly longer in the laryngoscope-guided insertion group, compared to blind insertion group (35.9 ± 9.5 s vs. 28.7 ± 9.5 s, p < 0.0001).ConclusionLaryngoscope-guided insertion of LMA improves the airway seal pressure compared to blind insertion. Our result suggests that it may be a useful technique for LMA insertion.Trial registrationcris.nih.go.kr, identifier: KCT0001945 (2016-06-17).

PurposePrevention of cough during emergence after nasal surgery is important for avoiding surgical site bleeding. We investigated the remifentanil effect-site concentration in 50% (EC50) of the elderly patients undergoing nasal surgery for smooth emergence without cough and compared it with that of adult patients.MethodsTwenty-two elderly (aged 65–80 years) and 25 adult patients (aged 20–60 years) with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I/II undergoing nasal surgery were enrolled. Anesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane and remifentanil. Remifentanil EC50 and EC95 for preventing cough were determined using the modified Dixon’s up-and-down method and isotonic regression with bootstrapping approach. Recovery profiles were also recorded.ResultsWith Dixon’s up-and-down method, the EC50 of remifentanil in elderly patients (2.40±0.25 ng/mL) was not significantly different from that of adults (2.33±0.30 ng/mL) (P=0.687). With isotonic regression, the EC95 of remifentanil in elderly patients (3.32 [95% confidence interval: 3.06–3.38] ng/mL) was not significantly different from that of adults (3.30 [95% confidence interval: 2.96–3.37] ng/mL). However, eye opening time (14.1±3.8 vs 12.0±2.9 seconds), extubation time (17.2±4.1 vs 14.0±3.0 seconds), and postanesthesia care unit duration (44.5±7.6 vs 38.7±3.4 minutes) in elderly patients were significantly longer than those in adults (P<0.05).ConclusionRemifentanil EC50 for preventing cough after nasal surgery with sevoflurane anesthesia did not differ between elderly and adult patients. However, delayed awakening and respiratory adverse events may warrant attention in elderly patients.

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to determine the effect-site concentration (Ce) of remifentanil in 50% of patients (EC50) and 95% of patients (EC95) for smooth laryngeal mask airway (LMA) removal in adults under propofol and remifentanil anesthesia.Materials and MethodsTwenty-five patients of ASA physical status I-II and ages 18-60 years who were to undergo minor gynecological or orthopedic surgery were assessed in this study. Anesthesia was induced and maintained with propofol and remifentanil target-controlled infusion (TCI). Remifentanil was maintained at a predetermined Ce during the emergence period. The modified Dixon's up-and-down method was used to determine the remifentanil concentration, starting from 1.0 ng/mL (step size of 0.2 ng/mL). Successful removal of the LMA was regarded as absence of coughing/gagging, clenched teeth, gross purposeful movements, breath holding, laryngospasm, or desaturation to SpO2<90%.ResultsThe mean±SD Ce of remifentanil for smooth LMA removal after propofol anesthesia was 0.83±0.16 ng/mL. Using isotonic regression with a bootstrapping approach, the estimated EC50 and EC95 of remifentanil Ce were 0.91 ng/mL [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.77-1.07 ng/mL] and 1.35 ng/mL (95% CI, 1.16-1.38 ng/mL), respectively.ConclusionOur results showed that remifentanil TCI at an established Ce is a reliable technique for achieving safe and smooth emergence without coughing, laryngospasm, or other airway reflexes.