A Randomized Trial Comparing Two Laryngeal Mask Airway Insertion Techniques

Koay, C. K.; Yoong, Chee Seng; Kok, P. H. K.

doi:10.1177/0310057x0102900609

Cited by 23 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 10 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Of note, there were no incidences of sore throat when cuff pressures were <40 cmH 2 O, a pressure unlikely to exceed the pharyngeal perfusion pressure (15). In line with previous studies, the insertion as well as the removal technique of the LMA did not affect the development of sore throat (16–18).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Impact of laryngeal mask airway cuff pressures on the incidence of sore throat in children

Wong

Heaney

Chambers

et al. 2009

Pediatric Anesthesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Impact of laryngeal mask airway cuff pressures on the incidence of sore throat in children

Wong

Heaney

Chambers

et al. 2009

Pediatric Anesthesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But they have several disadvantages like dislocation of the arytenoid cartilages, unsatisfactory positioning, and need for laryngoscopy. [3–5] Experience with newer supraglottic devices has shown that these can be just “pushed in” to their correct final position when steered along the palate, without the need for digital intraoral manipulation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Insertion of LMA Classic™ with and without digital intraoral manipulation in anesthetized unparalyzed patients

Krishna

Kamath

Shenoy

2012

J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:The standard recommended insertion technique for LMA Classic™ requires the insertion of index finger into the oral cavity. Several anesthesiologists are reluctant to do this. We conducted this study to evaluate the modified technique of insertion of LMA Classic™ (not requiring insertion of fingers into the patient's mouth) against the standard index finger insertion technique.Materials and Methods:This prospective, randomized, comparative study was conducted on 200 consenting patients. Patients suitable for anesthetic with LMA Classic™ were randomized to standard technique group (standard insertion technique) and modified technique group (technique not requiring digital intraoral manipulation). Laryngeal mask airway (LMA) was inserted by five designated anesthesiologists. Anesthetic protocol was standardized. Time taken to achieve an effective airway, ease of insertion, glottic view obtained through LMA, and incidence of sore throat were assessed.Results:Patient characteristics and duration of surgery were comparable between the groups. Time to achieve an effective airway was comparable [18.5 (8) s with standard technique and 19.7 (10) s with modified technique; data are mean (standard deviation)]. Ease of insertion (92 easy with standard technique and 91 easy with modified technique), success rate (99% in both the groups), glottic view with fiberoptic bronchoscope, and sore throat incidence (six patients with standard technique and eight patients with modified technique) were comparable. The first attempt success rate was significantly higher with the standard technique (98 patients in the standard technique group and 91 patients in the modified technique group).Conclusions:LMA Classic™ can be inserted successfully without the need to insert index finger into patient's mouth, though the first attempt success rate is higher with the standard technique.

show abstract

“…In pediatric anesthesia various LMA insertion techniques are described and used in clinical practice (Table 2) (10–17). Most differ in the cuff volume at the time of LMA insertion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%