Cecilia Menna1, Silvia Fiorelli2, Domenico Massullo2, Mohsen Ibrahim1, Monica Rocco2, Erino Angelo Rendina1. 1. Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Clinical and Surgical Translational Medicine, Sant' Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy. 2. Division of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Clinical and Surgical Translational Medicine, Sant' Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The endotracheal tube (ETT) and the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) are possible strategies for airway management during tracheal resection and reconstruction for tracheal and laryngotracheal stenosis. The goal of the study was to analyse and compare outcomes in the LMA and ETT groups. METHODS: Between 2003 and 2020, a total of 184 patients affected by postintubation, post-tracheostomy and idiopathic stenosis who had tracheal or laryngotracheal resections and reconstructions via a cervicotomy were retrospectively enrolled in this single-centre study. In 29 patients, airway management was achieved through LMA during tracheal surgery, whereas in 155 patients, it was achieved through ETT. A case-control matching analysis was performed with a 1:1 ratio, according to age, gender, body mass index, aetiology and length of stenosis (1-4 cm), resulting in 22 patients managed through LMA (LMA group) matched with 22 patients managed through ETT (ETT group). RESULTS: No significant differences were found in the reintubation rate, 30-day mortality and postoperative length of stay. Operative time was shorter in patients with LMA (96.23 ± 34.72 min in the ETT group vs 76.14 ± 26.94 min in the LMA group; P = 0.043). Intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate and stay were lower in the LMA group [18 in the ETT group vs 8 in the LMA group, odds ratio = 10.17, confidence interval (CI) 95% 1.79-57.79; P = 0. 009; 22.77 ± 16.68 h in ETT group vs 9.23 ± 13.51 h in LMA group; P = 0.005]. Dysphonia was more frequent in the ETT group than in the LMA group (20 in the ETT group vs 11 in the LMA group, odds ratio = 13.79, CI 95% 1.86-102; P = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: LMA is a feasible option for airway management in tracheal surgery, with lower operative time, ICU admission rate, ICU length of stay and postoperative dysphonia occurrence.
OBJECTIVES: The endotracheal tube (ETT) and the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) are possible strategies for airway management during tracheal resection and reconstruction for tracheal and laryngotracheal stenosis. The goal of the study was to analyse and compare outcomes in the LMA and ETT groups. METHODS: Between 2003 and 2020, a total of 184 patients affected by postintubation, post-tracheostomy and idiopathic stenosis who had tracheal or laryngotracheal resections and reconstructions via a cervicotomy were retrospectively enrolled in this single-centre study. In 29 patients, airway management was achieved through LMA during tracheal surgery, whereas in 155 patients, it was achieved through ETT. A case-control matching analysis was performed with a 1:1 ratio, according to age, gender, body mass index, aetiology and length of stenosis (1-4 cm), resulting in 22 patients managed through LMA (LMA group) matched with 22 patients managed through ETT (ETT group). RESULTS: No significant differences were found in the reintubation rate, 30-day mortality and postoperative length of stay. Operative time was shorter in patients with LMA (96.23 ± 34.72 min in the ETT group vs 76.14 ± 26.94 min in the LMA group; P = 0.043). Intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate and stay were lower in the LMA group [18 in the ETT group vs 8 in the LMA group, odds ratio = 10.17, confidence interval (CI) 95% 1.79-57.79; P = 0. 009; 22.77 ± 16.68 h in ETT group vs 9.23 ± 13.51 h in LMA group; P = 0.005]. Dysphonia was more frequent in the ETT group than in the LMA group (20 in the ETT group vs 11 in the LMA group, odds ratio = 13.79, CI 95% 1.86-102; P = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: LMA is a feasible option for airway management in tracheal surgery, with lower operative time, ICU admission rate, ICU length of stay and postoperative dysphonia occurrence.
Authors: Thomas Schweiger; Isaac de Faria Soares Rodrigues; Imme Roesner; Berit Schneider-Stickler; Matthias Evermann; Doris-Maria Denk-Linnert; Helmut Hager; Walter Klepetko; Konrad Hoetzenecker Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2020-03-19 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: So Ron Choi; Deuk Won Eom; Tae Young Lee; Ji Wook Jung; Gang Hyun Lee; Seung Cheol Lee; Sang Yoong Park; Tae Hyung Kim Journal: Int Med Case Rep J Date: 2022-08-25