Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology
https://bjan-sba.org/article/doi/10.1016/j.bjane.2015.06.004
Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology
Scientific Article

Simple method for determining the size of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in children: a prospective observational study

Método simples para determinar o tamanho da máscara laríngea ProSeal em crianças: um estudo observacional, prospectivo

Murat Haliloglu; Sevgi Bilgen; Neslihan Uzture; Ozge Koner

Downloads: 0
Views: 665

Abstract

Abstract Background and objectives: The size of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in children is determined by the patient's weight. However, in some instances, an alternative method may be required. This study aimed to compare sizing by the auricle with conventional ProSeal laryngeal mask airway sizing by weight in children. Methods: After approval by the institutional ethics board and written informed consent from parents, 197 children with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II who were scheduled for a routine genitourinary operation were included in the study. The correct ProSeal laryngeal mask airway size was determined according to the size of the auricle in children. The results were compared with the standard weight-based method recommended by the manufacturer's guidelines. The patients were classified into different groups depending on the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway sizes as determined by both methods. Agreement between both techniques was evaluated with κ coefficient statistics. Results: Insertion and adequate ventilation were achieved in 185 patients at the first attempt, and 12 patients required a second attempt. Three patients had to be intubated. Agreement between the two methods of size selection of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway was moderate using κ statistics. Conclusions: Choosing the size of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in children according to the auricle of the child is valid and practical. In particular, this is an alternative method in situations where the patient's weight is unknown, such as in emergency situations.

Keywords

Child, Ear auricle, ProSeal laryngeal mask airway

Resumo

Resumo Justificativa e objetivos: O tamanho da máscara laríngea ProSeal (MLPS) em crianças é determinado com base no peso do paciente. No entanto, em alguns casos, pode ser necessário um método opcional. Este estudo teve como objetivo comparar o tamanho da MLPS convencional pela orelha e pelo peso em crianças. Métodos: Após aprovação do Comitê de Ética institucional e receber o consentimento informado assinado pelos pais, 197 crianças com estado físico ASA I-II (de acordo com a classificação da Sociedade Americana de Anestesiologistas), programadas para uma operação geniturinária de rotina, foram incluídas no estudo. O tamanho correto da MLPS foi determinado de acordo com o tamanho da orelha em crianças. Os resultados foram comparados com os do método padrão, baseado no peso, recomendado pelas diretrizes do fabricante. Os pacientes foram classificados em diferentes grupos, a depender dos tamanhos das MLPS, conforme determinado por ambos os métodos. A concordância entre as duas técnicas foi avaliada com as estatísticas do coeficiente kappa (k). Resultados: Inserção e ventilação adequada foram obtidas em 185 pacientes na primeira tentativa e 12 pacientes precisaram de uma segunda tentativa. Três pacientes precisaram ser intubados. A concordância entre os dois métodos de seleção do tamanho da MLPS foi moderada com a estatística κ. Conclusões: A escolha do tamanho da MLPS em crianças de acordo com a orelha da criança é válida e prática. Em particular, é um método opcional em situações nas quais o peso do paciente é desconhecido, como em situações de emergência.

Palavras-chave

Criança, Pavilhão auricular, Máscara laríngea ProSeal

References

Kokkinis K. The use of the laryngeal mask airway in CPR. Resuscitation. 1994;27:9-12.

Rubin MSN. Emergency medicine, comprehensive study guide. Pediatric airway management. 2004:88-94.

Brain AI, Verghese C, Strube PJ. The LMA 'ProSeal' - a laryngeal mask with an oesophageal vent. Br J Anaesth. 2000;84:650-4.

Ho AM, Karmakar MK, Dion PW. Choosing the correct laryngeal mask airway sizes and cuff inflation volumes in pediatric patients. J Emerg Med. 2008;35:299-300.

Kim HJ, Park MJ, Kim JT. Appropriate laryngeal mask airway size for overweight and underweight children. Anaesthesia. 2010;65:50-3.

Zahoor A, Ahmad N, Sereche G. A novel method for laryngeal mask airway size selection in paediatric patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2012;29:386-90.

LMA ProsealTM Instruction Manual. 2000.

Keller C, Brimacombe JR, Keller K. Comparison of four methods for assessing airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in adult patients. Br J Anaesth. 1999;82:286-7.

Jolliffe L, Jackson I. Airway management in the outpatient setting: new devices and techniques. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2008;21:719-22.

Park C, Bahk JH, Ahn WS. The laryngeal mask airway in infants and children. Can J Anaesth. 2001;48:413-7.

Mason DG, Bingham RM. The laryngeal mask airway in children. Anaesthesia. 1990;45:760-3.

Cook TM, Lee G, Nolan JP. The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: a review of the literature. Can J Anaesth. 2005;52:739-60.

Berry AM, Brimacombe JR, McManus KF. An evaluation of the factors influencing selection of the optimal size of laryngeal mask airway in normal adults. Anaesthesia. 1998;53:565-70.

Uppal V, Fletcher G, Kinsella J. Comparison of the i-gel with the cuffed tracheal tube during pressure-controlled ventilation. Br J Anaesth. 2009;102:264-8.

Voyagis GS, Batzioulis PG, Secha-Doussaitou PN. Selection of the proper size of laryngeal mask airway in adults. Anesth Analg. 1996;83:663-4.

Loke GP, Tan SM, Ng AS. Appropriate size of laryngeal mask airway for children. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2002;30:771-4.

Benumof JL. Laryngeal mask airway and the ASA difficult airway algorithm. Anesthesiology. 1996;84:686-99.

Johnston DF, Wrigley SR, Robb PJ. The laryngeal mask airway in paediatric anaesthesia. Anaesthesia. 1990;45:924-7.

Greig A, Ryan J, Glucksman E. How good are doctors at estimating children's weight?. J Accid Emerg Med. 1997;14:101-3.

Brimacombe J, Berry A, Brain AI. Optimal intracuff pressures with the laryngeal mask. Br J Anaesth. 1996;77:295-6.

Goldmann K, Roettger C, Wulf H. The size 1(1/2) ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in infants: a randomized, crossover investigation with the Classic laryngeal mask airway. Anesth Analg. 2006;102:405-10.

Cook TM, McKinstry C, Hardy R. Randomized crossover comparison of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway with the Laryngeal Tube during anaesthesia with controlled ventilation. Br J Anaesth. 2003;91:678-83.

Gallart L, Mases A, Martinez J. Simple method to determine the size of the laryngeal mask airway in children. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2003;20:570-4.

5dcd9daa0e8825ef67bf58f3 rba Articles
Links & Downloads

Braz J Anesthesiol

Share this page
Page Sections