OBJECTIVES: To survey current practice and to compare the opinion of paediatricians and anaesthesiologists regarding laryngeal mask airway (LMA) in neonatal resuscitation. DESIGN: A structured postal questionnaire on the use of the laryngeal mask airway in neonatal resuscitation was sent to the heads of department of the paediatric and anaesthesiology services. SETTING: Forty-three hospitals in the Veneto Region, Italy. RESULTS: During the year 2000, 1526 out of 33708 (4.5%) neonates in our region needed resuscitation. Of these cases, 101 (6.6%) were ventilated using the LMA. Laryngeal mask airway availability was significantly greater in the anaesthesiology department compared to the paediatric department (90% versus 50%; P = 0.002). However, 52% of anaesthesiologists and 72% of paediatricians had never used the laryngeal mask airway in their practice. The laryngeal mask airway was considered as an essential device more frequently by the anaesthesiologists than by the paediatricians (27% versus 5%; P = 0.015); both groups considered the laryngeal mask airway particularly useful in specific situations. Interestingly, while 16% of the paediatricians described the laryngeal mask airway as having no value, none of the anaesthesiologists did (P = 0.002). Staff competence was considered low by 70% of anaesthesiology heads of department compared with 90% of their pediatric colleagues. In both specialties, use of the laryngeal mask airway was limited to medical staff. With regard to training, 35% of anaesthesiologists and 22.5% of paediatricians had attended a course on laryngeal mask airway use. CONCLUSIONS: Laryngeal mask airway availability and perceived value were higher amongst anaesthesiologists than their paediatric colleagues. However, educational level, competence and utilization rates of the LMA in neonatal resuscitation were low in both groups.
OBJECTIVES: To survey current practice and to compare the opinion of paediatricians and anaesthesiologists regarding laryngeal mask airway (LMA) in neonatal resuscitation. DESIGN: A structured postal questionnaire on the use of the laryngeal mask airway in neonatal resuscitation was sent to the heads of department of the paediatric and anaesthesiology services. SETTING: Forty-three hospitals in the Veneto Region, Italy. RESULTS: During the year 2000, 1526 out of 33708 (4.5%) neonates in our region needed resuscitation. Of these cases, 101 (6.6%) were ventilated using the LMA. Laryngeal mask airway availability was significantly greater in the anaesthesiology department compared to the paediatric department (90% versus 50%; P = 0.002). However, 52% of anaesthesiologists and 72% of paediatricians had never used the laryngeal mask airway in their practice. The laryngeal mask airway was considered as an essential device more frequently by the anaesthesiologists than by the paediatricians (27% versus 5%; P = 0.015); both groups considered the laryngeal mask airway particularly useful in specific situations. Interestingly, while 16% of the paediatricians described the laryngeal mask airway as having no value, none of the anaesthesiologists did (P = 0.002). Staff competence was considered low by 70% of anaesthesiology heads of department compared with 90% of their pediatric colleagues. In both specialties, use of the laryngeal mask airway was limited to medical staff. With regard to training, 35% of anaesthesiologists and 22.5% of paediatricians had attended a course on laryngeal mask airway use. CONCLUSIONS: Laryngeal mask airway availability and perceived value were higher amongst anaesthesiologists than their paediatric colleagues. However, educational level, competence and utilization rates of the LMA in neonatal resuscitation were low in both groups.
Authors: V Wenzel; S G Russo; H R Arntz; J Bahr; M A Baubin; B W Böttiger; B Dirks; U Kreimeier; M Fries; C Eich Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 1.041