BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Risks are anticipated for laryngeal mask airway (LMA) anaesthesia during nasal and sinus surgeries because blood can trickle posteriorly into the hypopharynx and contaminate the airway. This study was conducted to determine whether a LMA could provide adequate airway protection from the expected intraoperative bleeding. METHODS: After obtaining ethics committee approval, 60 children ASA status I or II, 1-12 years of age, and scheduled for nasal and sinus surgery were randomized to one of two groups, endotracheal tube (ETT) or LMA, with 30 patients in each. Topical lidocaine with adrenaline was used in all patients, and throat packs were used for the ETT group. The airway was examined using a fibreoptic endoscope in order to determine whether blood or tissue debris soiled the supraglottic airway or trachea. After extubation, LMAs and ETTs were examined for soiling by blood and graded on a scale of 0-3. For ETT, the grades were 0, none; 1, contamination above the mark for vocal cord depth; 2, contamination below the mark for vocal cord depth; and 3, contamination interiorly. For LMA, they were 0, no staining; 1, staining on the anterior aspect of the cuff of the LMA; 2, staining inside the cup of the LMA; and 3, staining found in the tube. RESULTS:Blood stains were found in the larynx of one child in the LMA group. In the ETT group, there were three cases of staining (two supraglottic and one in the trachea, P = 0.161). With the LMA, 12 (40%) and 18 (60%) patients had visual contamination scores of 0 and 1, respectively. With the ETT, 14 (46.7%), 10 (33.3%), and six (20%) patients had visual contamination scores of 0, 1, and 2, respectively (P = 0.0123). CONCLUSION:LMA is a suitable method for paediatric patients undergoing sinonasal surgery because it offers airway protection from blood contamination comparable to that of a standard uncuffed ETT with throat pack.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Risks are anticipated for laryngeal mask airway (LMA) anaesthesia during nasal and sinus surgeries because blood can trickle posteriorly into the hypopharynx and contaminate the airway. This study was conducted to determine whether a LMA could provide adequate airway protection from the expected intraoperative bleeding. METHODS: After obtaining ethics committee approval, 60 childrenASA status I or II, 1-12 years of age, and scheduled for nasal and sinus surgery were randomized to one of two groups, endotracheal tube (ETT) or LMA, with 30 patients in each. Topical lidocaine with adrenaline was used in all patients, and throat packs were used for the ETT group. The airway was examined using a fibreoptic endoscope in order to determine whether blood or tissue debris soiled the supraglottic airway or trachea. After extubation, LMAs and ETTs were examined for soiling by blood and graded on a scale of 0-3. For ETT, the grades were 0, none; 1, contamination above the mark for vocal cord depth; 2, contamination below the mark for vocal cord depth; and 3, contamination interiorly. For LMA, they were 0, no staining; 1, staining on the anterior aspect of the cuff of the LMA; 2, staining inside the cup of the LMA; and 3, staining found in the tube. RESULTS: Blood stains were found in the larynx of one child in the LMA group. In the ETT group, there were three cases of staining (two supraglottic and one in the trachea, P = 0.161). With the LMA, 12 (40%) and 18 (60%) patients had visual contamination scores of 0 and 1, respectively. With the ETT, 14 (46.7%), 10 (33.3%), and six (20%) patients had visual contamination scores of 0, 1, and 2, respectively (P = 0.0123). CONCLUSION: LMA is a suitable method for paediatric patients undergoing sinonasal surgery because it offers airway protection from blood contamination comparable to that of a standard uncuffed ETT with throat pack.