Lingzhi Li1, Zhimin Zhang2, Zihan Yao3, Hongjie Wang1, Hebin Wang4, Haishui An1, Jun Yao5. 1. Anesthesiology Department, Affiliated Hospital of Hebei University, Baoding, 071000, Hebei, China. 2. Anesthesiology Department, Affiliated Hospital of Hebei University, Baoding, 071000, Hebei, China. Electronic address: zhangzm1026@163.com. 3. Hebei University Medical College, Baoding, 071000, Hebei, China. 4. Anesthesiology Department, An Xin Xian Yi Yuan, Baoding, 071000, Hebei, China. 5. Department of Pain Treatment, Affiliated Hospital of Hebei University, Baoding, 071000, Hebei, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasing studies have shown that the use of laryngeal mask airways (LMAs) improved the perioperative respiratory adverse events (PRAEs) in children. However, the results of some of these studies still remained controversial as their sample sizes were small. A systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to evaluate the impact of LMAs in decreasing PRAEs in children. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science up to May 29, 2018 to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which analyzed and evaluated the impact of LMAs in decreasing PRAEs in children. Participants were randomly assigned to receive LMAs (the intervention group) or other airways (the control group). We studied PRAEs which included breath apnea, laryngospasm, desaturation, cough, fever, pulmonary rales and pulmonary infection. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated to compare the outcomes of the groups. We also performed subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis to evaluate the impact of LMAs on further decreasing PRAEs. Two reviewers assessed the trial quality and extracted the data independently. All statistical analyses were performed using the standard statistical procedures provided in the Review Manager 5.2. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs (N = 1577 participants) were identified. Comparing with other airways, significant reduction were found in the overall PRAEs (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.39-0.70; P < 0.0001), major PRAEs (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.29-0.79; P = 0.004) as well as minor PRAEs (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.45-0.74; P < 0.0001) in patients managed with LMAs. When compared with endotracheal tubes (ETTs), LMAs also significantly reduced PRAEs. Further analysis also found that LMAs reduced the incidences of postoperative cough (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31-0.63; P < 0.00001), pulmonary rales (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44-0.87; P = 0.006) and infections (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.13-0.61; P = 0.001) in children. CONCLUSIONS: LMAs reduced the incidences of many PRAEs in children and should be used as one of anaesthesia methods for children.
BACKGROUND: Increasing studies have shown that the use of laryngeal mask airways (LMAs) improved the perioperative respiratory adverse events (PRAEs) in children. However, the results of some of these studies still remained controversial as their sample sizes were small. A systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to evaluate the impact of LMAs in decreasing PRAEs in children. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science up to May 29, 2018 to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which analyzed and evaluated the impact of LMAs in decreasing PRAEs in children. Participants were randomly assigned to receive LMAs (the intervention group) or other airways (the control group). We studied PRAEs which included breath apnea, laryngospasm, desaturation, cough, fever, pulmonary rales and pulmonary infection. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated to compare the outcomes of the groups. We also performed subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis to evaluate the impact of LMAs on further decreasing PRAEs. Two reviewers assessed the trial quality and extracted the data independently. All statistical analyses were performed using the standard statistical procedures provided in the Review Manager 5.2. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs (N = 1577 participants) were identified. Comparing with other airways, significant reduction were found in the overall PRAEs (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.39-0.70; P < 0.0001), major PRAEs (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.29-0.79; P = 0.004) as well as minor PRAEs (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.45-0.74; P < 0.0001) in patients managed with LMAs. When compared with endotracheal tubes (ETTs), LMAs also significantly reduced PRAEs. Further analysis also found that LMAs reduced the incidences of postoperative cough (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31-0.63; P < 0.00001), pulmonary rales (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44-0.87; P = 0.006) and infections (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.13-0.61; P = 0.001) in children. CONCLUSIONS: LMAs reduced the incidences of many PRAEs in children and should be used as one of anaesthesia methods for children.