Literature DB >> 30963460

Cricoid-mental distance-based versus weight-based criteria for size selection of classic laryngeal mask airway in adults: a randomized controlled study.

Yanling Zhu1, Weihua Shen1, Yiquan Lin1, Ting Huang1, Ling Xie1, Yao Yang2, Hongbin Chen3, Xiaoliang Gan1.   

Abstract

The optimal size selection of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) based on body weight is not always applicable. This study was prospectively conducted to evaluate the efficacy of cricoid-mental distance-based method versus weight-based method in optimal size selection of LMA in adults. Seventy-four patients (aged from 18 to 65) undergoing ophthalmic surgery were randomly assigned into cricoid-mental (CM) distance-based group or weight-based group to select appropriate size of LMA. The primary outcome was oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP). Secondary outcomes included overall insertion success rate, number of insertion attempts, time to successful insertion, ease of insertion, score of fiber-optic view, peak inspiratory pressure during mechanical ventilation and postoperative pharyngolaryngeal morbidity. The OLP was significantly higher in CM distance-based group than that in weight-based group (19.38 ± 3.52 vs. 17.50 ± 3.18, P = 0.022). The successful placement at the first attempt in CM distance-based group was dramatically increased as compared with weight-based group (89.2% vs. 62.2%, P = 0.005). The overall success rate of LMA insertion in CM distance-based group was slightly increased in comparison with the weight-based group (100% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.240). There were no significant differences in score of fiber-optic view and postoperative pharyngolaryngeal morbidity between both groups (all P > 0.05). CM distance-based criteria is an alternative choice for optimizing size selection of classic LMA in adults.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adults; Cricoid cartilage; Laryngeal mask airway; Mentum; Size

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30963460     DOI: 10.1007/s10877-019-00308-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput        ISSN: 1387-1307            Impact factor:   2.502


  19 in total

1.  Re-evaluation of appropriate size of the laryngeal mask airway.

Authors:  T Asai; K Murao; H Yukawa; K Shingu
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 9.166

2.  Postcricoid region and cervical esophagus: normal appearance at CT and MR imaging.

Authors:  I M Schmalfuss; A A Mancuso; R P Tart
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Insertion of laryngeal mask airway does not increase the intraocular pressure in children with glaucoma.

Authors:  Neerja Bhardwaj; Sandhya Yaddanapudi; Swati Singh; Surinder S Pandav
Journal:  Paediatr Anaesth       Date:  2011-08-12       Impact factor: 2.556

4.  Comparison of 2 cuff inflation methods of laryngeal mask airway Classic for safe use without cuff manometer in adults.

Authors:  Min-Soo Kim; Jeong-Rim Lee; Yang-Sik Shin; Ji-Won Chung; Kyu-Ho Lee; Ki Ryang Ahn
Journal:  Am J Emerg Med       Date:  2013-11-21       Impact factor: 2.469

5.  Standardization of extraglottic airway devices, is it time yet?

Authors:  Tom C R V van Zundert; Carin A Hagberg; Davide Cattano
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 5.108

6.  Cricoid pressure results in compression of the postcricoid hypopharynx: the esophageal position is irrelevant.

Authors:  Mark J Rice; Anthony A Mancuso; Charles Gibbs; Timothy E Morey; Nikolaus Gravenstein; Lori A Deitte
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 5.108

7.  Major complications of airway management in the UK: results of the Fourth National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Difficult Airway Society. Part 2: intensive care and emergency departments.

Authors:  T M Cook; N Woodall; J Harper; J Benger
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2011-03-29       Impact factor: 9.166

Review 8.  Head and neck position for direct laryngoscopy.

Authors:  Mohammad El-Orbany; Harvey Woehlck; M Ramez Salem
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2011-05-19       Impact factor: 5.108

Review 9.  Inconsistent size nomenclature in extraglottic airway devices.

Authors:  T C Van Zundert; C A Hagberg; D Cattano
Journal:  Minerva Anestesiol       Date:  2013-12-04       Impact factor: 3.051

10.  Comparison of the i-gel with the cuffed tracheal tube during pressure-controlled ventilation.

Authors:  V Uppal; G Fletcher; J Kinsella
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 9.166

View more
  4 in total

1.  Laryngeal mask airway and the enigma of anatomical sizing.

Authors:  Davide Cattano; Tom C R V Van Zundert; Jacek Wojtczak
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2019-04-24       Impact factor: 2.502

Review 2.  End of year summary 2019: anaesthesia and airway management.

Authors:  Jan F A Hendrickx; Tom Van Zundert; Andre M De Wolf
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2020-01-02       Impact factor: 2.502

3.  Validation of manufacturers' laryngeal mask airway size selection standard: a large retrospective study.

Authors:  Yaoyao Ren; Cuicui Cao; Xuan Liang; Zhihai Ju; Ling Zhang; Xu Cui; Guyan Wang
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2021-02

4.  Size selection of the Ambu AuraOnce laryngeal mask in Chinese men weighing >70 kg: a pilot study.

Authors:  Jiahui Chen; Chunhuan Chen; Wei Xu; Xiaoguang Zhang
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2021-05       Impact factor: 1.671

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.