Abstract
Background and objectives
This study aims to compare the frequency of ideal anatomic placement of the Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) using the traditional blind insertion approach with one where placement was facilitated by the use of a laryngoscope. Laryngeal Mask Airway is a supraglottic device in providing general anaesthesia.
Methods
A prospective comparison of 60 patients divided into 2 groups (30 with the blind technique and 30 with the direct technique) were evaluated with 2 airway assessment methods, Wilson and Mallampati. We also considered whether there was a relationship between these criteria and the successful placement into an ideal position. Other variables were considered, including hemodynamics. Five placement visual ordinals were used to grade the LMA position.
Results
There was no statistically significant difference between group 1 and group 2 (P=0.279) in terms of Campbell category. There was no statistically significant relation between Wilson airway score or Mallampati class and Campbell category (p=0.633 and 0.239 respectively). There was no statistically significant difference in systolic and diastolic BP at 1, 2 and 5 min post insertion between the two groups, but there was a statistically significant difference in 1 and 2 minute post insertion pulse rate (P=0.004).
Conclusion
Blind insertion technique is easier and simpler method for insertion of LMA and has a reasonable success during insertion, so it is recommended to be used.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Wat LI (1999) The laryngeal mask airway. Oral and maxillofacial surgery clinics of North America. 11(4): 629–646
Brain AI (1983) The Laryngeal Mask — A new concept in airway management. Br J Anaesth 55(8): 801–805
Eastwick-Field R (1996) The laryngeal mask: an essential part of emergency airway management. Accid Emerg Nurs 4(4): 175–178
Rollert MK (2004) The case against the laryngeal mask airway for anesthesia in Oral and maxillofacial surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 62(6): 739–741
Campbell RL, Biddle C, Assudmi N, Campbell JR, Hotchkiss M (2004) Fiberoptic assessment of laryngeal mask airway placement: Blind insertion versus Direct visual epiglottoscopy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 62(9): 1108–1113
Wilson ME, Spiegelhalter D, Robertson JA, Lesser P (1988) Predicting difficult intubation. Br J Anaesth 61(2): 211–216
Mallampati SR, Gatt SP, Gugino LD, Desai SP, Waraksa B, Freiberger D, Liu PL (1985) A clinical sign to predict difficult tracheal intubation: a prospective study. Can Anesth Soc J 32(4): 429–434
Wat LI (2003) The laryngeal mask airway for oral and maxillofacial surgery. Int Anesthesiol Clin 41(3): 29–56
Fullekrug B, Pothmann W, Werner C, Schulte am Esch J (1993) The laryngeal mask airway: Anesthetic gas leakage and fiberoptic control of positioning. J Clin Anesth 5(5): 357–363
Brimacombe J, Berry A (1993) Mallampati classification and laryngeal mask airway insertion. Anaesthesia 48(4): 347
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chandan, S.N., Sharma, S.M., Raveendra, U.S. et al. Fiberoptic assessment of laryngeal mask airway placement: a comparison of blind insertion and insertion with the use of a laryngoscope. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 8, 95–98 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-009-0025-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-009-0025-8