Impact of the practising anesthesiologist team member on the laryngeal mask cuff pressures and adverse event rate

Bülent Serhan Yurtlu; Volkan Hanci; Bengü Köksal; Dilek Okyay; Hilal Ayoglu; Isil Özkoçak Turan

doi:10.1016/j.bjane.2013.03.005

Scientific Article

Impact of the practising anesthesiologist team member on the laryngeal mask cuff pressures and adverse event rate

Impacto do anestesiologista em treinamento sobre as pressões do manguito de máscara laríngea e incidência de eventos adversos

Bülent Serhan Yurtlu; Volkan Hanci; Bengü Köksal; Dilek Okyay; Hilal Ayoglu; Isil Özkoçak Turan

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjane.2013.03.005 Braz J Anesthesiol, vol.65, n6, p.455-460, 2015

PDF

Downloads: 0

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We have planned to evaluate the laryngeal mask cuff pressures (LMcp) inflated by anesthesia workers of several seniority, without using manometer. METHODS: 180 patients scheduled to have short duration surgery with laryngeal mask were included in the study. Five anesthesia specialists (Group S), 10 residents (Group R) and 6 technicians (Group T) inflated the LMc; thereafter LMcp were measured with pressure manometer. Participants have repeated this practice in at least five different cases. LMcp higher than 60 cm H2O at the initial placement or intraoperative period were adjusted to normal range. Sore throat was questioned postoperatively. Groups were compared in terms of mean LMcp and occupational experience. RESULTS: At the settlement of LM, LMcp pressures within the normal range were determined in 26 (14.4%) cases. Mean LMcp after LM placement in Group S, R and T were 101.2 ± 14.0, 104.3 ± 20.5 cm H2O and 105.2 ± 18.4 cm H2O respectively (p > 0.05). Mean LMcp values in all measurement time periods within the groups were above the normal limit (60 cm H2O). When groups were compared in terms of LMcp, no difference has been found among pressure values. Occupational experience was 14.2 ± 3.9; 3.3 ± 1.1 and 6.6 ± 3.8 years for specialists, residents and technicians respectively and measured pressure values were not different in regard of occupational experience. Seven (3.9%) patients had sore throat at the 24th hour interview. CONCLUSION: Considering lower possibility of normal adjustment of LMcp and ineffectiveness of occupational experience to obtain normal pressure values, it is suitable that all anesthesia practitioners should adjust LMcp with manometer.

Keywords

Laryngeal mask airway, Pressure, Anesthesia

Resumo

OBJETIVO: Planejamos avaliar as pressões do manguito de máscara laríngea (PMML) inflado por profissionais da área de anestesiologia com tempos de serviço variados, sem o uso de manômetro. MÉTODOS: 180 pacientes agendados para cirurgia de curta duração com máscara laríngea foram incluídos no estudo. Cinco especialistas em anestesia (Grupo E), 10 residentes (Grupo R) e seis técnicos (Grupo T) inflaram os manguitos das máscaras laríngeas; subsequentemente, as PMML foram medidas com manômetro de pressão. Os participantes repetiram essa prática em pelo menos cinco casos diferentes. As PMML superiores a 60 cm H2O na colocação inicial ou no intraoperatório foram ajustadas para valores normais. Os pacientes foram questionados sobre a presença de dor de garganta no período pós-operatório. Os grupos foram comparados quanto à média das PMML e experiência profissional. RESULTADOS: Ao inserirem a ML, as pressões do manguito dentro da faixa normal foram determinadas em 26 (14,4%) casos. As médias das PMML após a inserção da ML pelos grupos E, R e T foram 101,2 ± 14,0, 104,3 ± 20,5 cm e 105,2 ± 18,4 cm H2O, respectivamente, (p > 0,05). A média dos valores das PMML em todos os períodos de mensuração entre os grupos estava acima do limite normal (60 cm H2O). Quando os grupos foram comparados quanto às PMML, nenhuma diferença foi encontrada entre os valores das pressões. A experiência profissional era de 14,2 ± 3,9; 3,3 ± 1,1 e 6,6 ± 3,8 anos para especialistas, residentes e técnicos, respectivamente, e os valores das pressões mensuradas não foram diferentes em relação à experiência profissional. Sete pacientes (3,9%) apresentaram dor de garganta durante a entrevista realizada na 24a hora. CONCLUSÃO: Levando-se em consideração uma possibilidade menor de ajuste da pressão do manguito da máscara laríngea (PMML) e da ineficácia da experiência profissional para a obtenção de valores normais das pressões, é adequado que todos os profissionais de anestesia ajustem as PMML com manômetro.

Palavras-chave

Máscara laríngea, Pressão, Anestesia

References

Cook TM. The classic laryngeal mask airway: a tried and tested airway. What now? Br J Anaesth.. 2006;96:149-52.

American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Man- agement of the Difficult. Practice guidelines for management of the difficult airway: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists task force on man- agement of the difficult, airway. Anesthesiology.. 2003;98:1269-77.

Heuer JF, Barwing J, Eich C. Initial ventilation through laryngeal tube instead of face mask in out-of-hospital car- diopulmonary arrest is effective and safe. Eur J Emerg Med.. 2010;17:10-5.

Reinhart DJ, Simmons G. Comparison of placement of the laryn- geal mask airway with endotracheal tube by paramedics and respiratory therapists. Ann Emerg Med.. 1994;24:260-3.

Pennant JH, Walker MB. Comparison of the endotracheal tube and the laryngeal mask airway management by paramedical personal. Anesth Analg.. 1992;74:531-4.

Barata I. The laryngeal mask airway: prehospital and emer- gency department use. Emerg Med Clin North Am.. 2008;26:1069-83.

Seet E, Yousaf F, Gupta S. Use of manometry for laryn- geal mask airway reduces postoperative pharyngolaryngeal adverse events: a prospective, randomized trial. Anesthesiol- ogy.. 2010;112:652-7.

Martins RH, Braz JR, Defaveri J. Effect of high laryn- geal mask airway intracuff pressure on the laryngopharyngeal mucosa of dogs. Laryngoscope.. 2000;110:645-50.

Zhang J, Zhao Z, Chen Y. New insights into the mechanism of injury to the recurrent laryngeal nerve associated with the laryngeal mask airway. Med Sci Monit.. 2010;28:HY7-9.

Brimacombe J, Clarke G, Keller C. Lingual nerve injury associ- ated with the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: a case report and review of the literature. Br J Anaesth.. 2005;95:420-3.

LMATM airway instruction manual. 2005.

Practice guidelines for management of the difficult airway: a report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists task force on management of the difficult, airway. Anesthesiology.. 1993;78:597-602.

Wong JG, Heaney M, Chambers NA. Impact of laryngeal mask airway cuff pressures on the incidence of sore throat in children. Paediatr Anaesth.. 2009;19:464-9.

Ulrich-Pur H, Hrska F, Krafft P. Comparison of mucosal pressures induced by cuffs of different airway devices. Anes- thesiology.. 2006;104:933-8.

Trujillo L, Anghelescu D, Bikhazi G. Unilateral hypoglossal nerve injury caused by a laryngeal mask airway in an infant. Paediatr Anaesth.. 2011;21:708-9.

Licina A, Chambers NA, Hullett B. Lower cuff pressures improve the seal of pediatric laryngeal mask airways. Paediatr Anaesth.. 2008;18:952-6.

Jeon YS, Choi JW, Jung HS. Effect of continuous cuff pressure regulator in general anaesthesia with laryngeal mask airway. J Int Med Res.. 2011;39:1900-7.

Schloss B, Rice J, Tobias JD. The laryngeal mask in infants and children: what is the cuff pressure?. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryn- gol.. 2012;76:284-6.

Galinski M, Tréoux V, Garrigue B. Intracuff pressures of endotracheal tubes in the management of airway emer- gencies: the need for pressure monitoring. Ann Emerg Med.. 2006;47:545-7.

Hoffman RJ, Parwani V, Hahn IH. Experienced emergency medicine physicians cannot safely inflate or estimate endotra- cheal tube cuff pressure using standard techniques. Am J Emerg Med.. 2006;24:139-43.

Ganner C. The accurate measurement of endotracheal tube cuff pressures. Br J Nurs.. 2001;10:1127-34.

Fernandez R, Blanch L, Mancebo J. Endotracheal tube cuff pressure assessment: pitfalls of finger estimation and need for objective measurement. Crit Care Med.. 1990;18:1423-6.

Morris LG, Zoumalan RA, Roccaforte JD. Monitoring tracheal tube cuff pressures in the intensive care unit: a com- parison of digital palpation and manometry. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol.. 2007;116:639-42.

Parwani V, Hoffman RJ, Russell A. Practicing paramedics cannot generate or estimate safe endotracheal tube cuff pressure using standard techniques. Prehosp Emerg Care.. 2007;11:307-11.

Ouellette RG. The effect of nitrous oxide on laryngeal mask cuff pressure. AANA J.. 2000;68:411-4.

Maino P, Dullenkopf A, Bernet V. Nitrous oxide diffusion into the cuffs of disposable laryngeal mask airways. Anaesthesia.. 2005;60:278-82.

van Zundert AA, Fonck K, Al-Shaikh B. Comparison of cuff-pressure changes in LMA-Classic and the new Soft Seal laryngeal masks during nitrous oxide anaesthesia in spontaneous breathing patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol.. 2004;21:547-52.

Burgard G, Möllhoff T, Prien T. The effect of laryngeal mask cuff pressure on postoperative sore throat incidence. J Clin Anesth.. 1996;8:198-201.

Impact of the practising anesthesiologist team member on the laryngeal mask cuff pressures and adverse event rate

Impacto do anestesiologista em treinamento sobre as pressões do manguito de máscara laríngea e incidência de eventos adversos

Bülent Serhan Yurtlu; Volkan Hanci; Bengü Köksal; Dilek Okyay; Hilal Ayoglu; Isil Özkoçak Turan

Abstract

Keywords

Resumo

Palavras-chave

References

Links

Share

Braz J Anesthesiol