A randomized controlled trial to compare the auricle size-based method for ProSeal laryngeal mask airway selection with the weight-based method among paediatric patients

Jha, Ayush; Jacob, Nisha Sara M; Mathew, Sheena; Duggappa, Arun Kumar Handigodu; Muhamed, Shiyad; Udupi, Sandesh

doi:10.1016/j.tacc.2020.08.004

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, Jha et al . [ 21 ] too observed the auricle method to be a promising alternative to weight-based LMA size calculation. Maximum number of insertions in the pinna group could be performed in a single attempt (96.07%) similar to the weight-based group (94.12%).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of weight-based and pinna size method for ProSeal laryngeal mask airway size selection in children receiving general anesthesia: A randomized clinical study

Mishra,

Kaur,

Suri

et al. 2024

Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aims: Several methods are in use for LMA ProSeal™ size selection in pediatric patients. Weight-based method is most commonly used. Pinna size–based method is a promising new technique for accurate size selection. Material and Methods: A total of 146 children aged between 6 months and 12 years undergoing surgery under general surgery were included. They were randomized into either pinna-based group (group X) or weight-based group (group Y). Both groups were compared for accurate placement of ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway (PLMA), ease of insertion, number of attempts needed, and peak airway pressures. Results: A Comparable number of patients had a Brimacombe score of 3 and above, indicating correct placement in both groups (P = 0.407). PLMA was easily inserted in 79.5% and 87.7% of patients of groups X and Y, respectively (P = 0.180). Insertion was found to be difficult in 20.5% of patients in group X, whereas it was difficult in only 12.3% of patients of group Y (P = 0.180). The two groups were comparable as per the number of attempts needed for insertion (P = 0.161). Mean peak airway pressures too were comparable between both groups. Ease of insertion too, was statistically insignificant between both groups. Conclusions: Pinna size–based estimation of LMA size is an effective alternative method to weight-based selection.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%