Conditions for laryngeal mask airway placement in terms of oropharyngeal leak pressure: a comparison between blind insertion and laryngoscope-guided insertion

Abstract

BackgroundInsertion under laryngoscopic guidance has been used to achieve ideal positioning of the laryngeal mask airway (LMA). However, to date, the efficacy of this technique has been evaluated only using fiberoptic evaluation, and the results have been conflicting. Other reliable tests to evaluate the efficacy of this technique have not been established. Recently, it has been suggested that the accuracy of LMA placement can be determined by clinical signs such as oropharyngeal leak pressure (OPLP). The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of LMA insertion under laryngoscopic guidance using OPLP as an indicator.MethodsAfter approved by the institutional ethics committee, a prospective comparison of 100 patients divided into 2 groups (50 with blind technique and 50 with the laryngoscope technique) were evaluated. An LMA (LarySeal™, Flexicare medical Ltd., UK) was inserted using the blind approach in the blind insertion group and using laryngoscopy in the laryngoscope-guided insertion group. The OPLP, fiberoptic position score, whether the first attempt at LMA insertion was successful, time taken for insertion, ease of LMA insertion, and adverse airway events were recorded.ResultsData were presented as mean\u2009±\u2009standard deviation. The OPLP was higher in the laryngoscope-guided insertion group than in the blind insertion group (21.4\u2009±\u20098.6 cmH2O vs. 18.1\u2009±\u20096.1 cmH2O, p\u2009=\u20090.031). The fiberoptic position score, rate of success in the first attempt, ease of insertion, and pharyngolaryngeal adverse events were similar between both groups. The time taken for insertion of the LMA was significantly longer in the laryngoscope-guided insertion group, compared to blind insertion group (35.9\u2009±\u20099.5\u2009s vs. 28.7\u2009±\u20099.5\u2009s, p\u2009<\u20090.0001).ConclusionLaryngoscope-guided insertion of LMA improves the airway seal pressure compared to blind insertion. Our result suggests that it may be a useful technique for LMA insertion.Trial registrationcris.nih.go.kr, identifier: KCT0001945 (2016-06-17).