M Bordes1, F Semjen, Y Meymat, B Zaghet, I Suriray, A-M Cros. 1. Département d'Anesthésie-Réanimation IV, Hôpital Pellegrin-Enfants, CHU de Bordeaux, Université de Bordeaux-II, Place Amélie-Raba-Léon, 33076 Bordeaux cedex, France. Maryline.bordes@chu-bordeaux.fr
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the Classic laryngeal mask airway (MLC) and the ProSeal LMA (MLP), size 2 and 2.5 in terms of ease of insertion, leak pressure and side effects during insertion and extraction in the recovery room. STUDY TYPE: Randomised prospective. MATERIAL AND METHOD: All children between 10 and 30 kg scheduled for general anaesthesia with laryngeal mask (ML) were included. There was no imposed protocol for the anaesthesia. The ML size was determined according to the child's weight. The MLC was inserted using the standard technique. The MLP was inserted following the recommendations, with or without the handle according to the operator's choice. The data analysed were: insertion type, ease of insertion of the mask, of the nasogastric tube (SG), number of attempts of mask insertion, complications, gastric leaks. RESULTS:One hundred (and) twenty children were included. There was no statistical difference in terms of difficulty of insertion, number of failed attempts, leak pressure or side effects. The use of the handle did not make insertion easier. Insertion of a nasogastric tube was possible in 92% cases. CONCLUSION:MLP is as easy to use in children as the MLC. MLP has the advantage of allowing rapid access to the stomach. It seems that the MLP is safer since its correct position is confirmed by easy gastric tube insertion.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To compare the Classic laryngeal mask airway (MLC) and the ProSeal LMA (MLP), size 2 and 2.5 in terms of ease of insertion, leak pressure and side effects during insertion and extraction in the recovery room. STUDY TYPE: Randomised prospective. MATERIAL AND METHOD: All children between 10 and 30 kg scheduled for general anaesthesia with laryngeal mask (ML) were included. There was no imposed protocol for the anaesthesia. The ML size was determined according to the child's weight. The MLC was inserted using the standard technique. The MLP was inserted following the recommendations, with or without the handle according to the operator's choice. The data analysed were: insertion type, ease of insertion of the mask, of the nasogastric tube (SG), number of attempts of mask insertion, complications, gastric leaks. RESULTS: One hundred (and) twenty children were included. There was no statistical difference in terms of difficulty of insertion, number of failed attempts, leak pressure or side effects. The use of the handle did not make insertion easier. Insertion of a nasogastric tube was possible in 92% cases. CONCLUSION:MLP is as easy to use in children as the MLC. MLP has the advantage of allowing rapid access to the stomach. It seems that the MLP is safer since its correct position is confirmed by easy gastric tube insertion.