Laryngeal mask placement in a teaching institution: analysis of difficult placements

Safety, Efficacy, and Ease of Insertion of Gnana Laryngeal Airway (GLA-4): A Prospective Clinical Study Utilizing the Unique Laryngeal Mask Airway With a Suction Tubing

INTRODUCTION

Utilizing laryngeal mask airways to maintain patients' airways is advantageous because it enables the anesthesiologist to keep the patient spontaneously inhaling and is less traumatic to the airway than intubation. Newer designs such as the Gnana laryngeal mask airway design permit real-time suctioning while the mask is on a patient.

METHODS

This is a prospective observational study of the efficacy of Gnana laryngeal airway 4 (GLA-4) in 50 patients undergoing colonoscopy. Induction and maintenance of anesthesia were provided with propofol; GLA-4 was applied to secure the airway; and correct placement was verified.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were included in the study (44% female, 56% male, mean age: 56.5 years, mean BMI: 33.3). Twelve patients were assigned American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class 2, and 38 were assigned ASA class 3. The first attempt of GLA-4 insertion was successful in 47 patients, and two attempts were required for the successful placement of the GLA-4 in two patients. The successful placement was not achieved in one patient. The average time to successful insertion was 27.1 ± 3.9s. The average volume of oropharyngeal secretions suctioned through the suction catheter was 9.96 ± 2.31 mL. No intraoperative or postoperative complications occurred in the 50 patients. There were no reports of sore throat, hoarseness, dysphagia, or cough immediately postop.

CONCLUSION

GLA-4 can be inserted safely with adequate periglottic occlusion. This laryngeal mask is unique and desirable due to its ability to evacuate oropharyngeal secretions while in place to prevent laryngospasm. To establish the role of GLA-4 in broader clinical situations, additional clinical trials and studies are required.

Extraglottic device use is rare during emergency airway management: A National Emergency Airway Registry (NEAR) study

INTRODUCTION

Airway management is a critical component of the management of emergency department (ED) patients. The ED airway literature primarily focuses upon endotracheal intubation; relatively less is known about the ED use of extraglottic devices (EGDs). The goal of this study was to describe the frequency of use, success, and complications for EGDs among ED patients.

METHODS

The National Emergency Airway Registry (NEAR) is a prospective, multi-center, observational registry. It captures data on all ED patients at participating sites requiring airway management. Intubating clinicians entered all data into an online system as soon as practical after each encounter. We conducted a secondary analysis of these data for all ED encounters in which EGD placement occurred. We used descriptive statistics to characterize these encounters.

RESULTS

Of 19,071 patients undergoing intubation attempts, 56 (0.3%) underwent EGD placement. Of 25 participating sites, 13 reported no cases undergoing EGD placement; the median number of EGDs placed per site was 2 (interquartile range 1-2.5, range 1-31). Twenty-nine (54%) patients had either hypotension or hypoxia prior to the start of airway management. Clinicians reported anticipation of a difficult airway in 55% and at least one difficult airway characteristic in 93% of these patients. Forty-one encounters entailed placement of a laryngeal mask airway (LMA®) Fastrach™, 33 of whom underwent subsequent successful intubation through the EGD and 7 of whom underwent intubation by alternative methods. An additional 10 encounters utilized a standard LMA® device. Providers placed 34 (61%) EGDs during the first intubation attempt. Seventeen EGD patients (30%) experienced peri-procedure adverse events, including 14 (25%) experiencing hypoxemia. None of these patients expired due to failed airways.

CONCLUSIONS

EGD use was rare in this multi-center ED registry. EGD occurred predominantly in patients with difficult airway characteristics with favorable airway management outcomes. Clinicians should consider this emergency airway device for patients with a suspected difficult airway.

Assessment of Neck Characteristics for Laryngeal Mask Airway Size Selection in Patients Who Underwent an Elective Ocular Surgery; A Cross-Sectional Study

Objective:

To investigate the neck features for laryngeal mask airway (LMA) size selection.

Methods:

This cross-sectional study was conducted on 160 patients referred for elective surgeries to Feiz Hospital affiliated with Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran (April 2016 to September 2018). Patients underwent ventilation using LMA whose size was determined through a weighted-based approach. All of the patients’ neck characteristics including circumference, thyromental distance, and opening mouth were measured. Ventilation factors were recorded including numbers of attempts for successful LMA insertion, quality of ventilation, and sealing.

Results:

Neck circumference and thyromental distance were significantly different with the size of LMA (p<0.0001 and p=0.005, respectively), but not mouth opening (p=0.21). Neck circumference, thyromental distance, and mouth opening were not significantly different with the times of insertion attempts (p>0.05 for all comparisons). However, the thyromental distance was significantly different with the quality ventilation status (p<0.0001). The total assessment of insertion attempts, ventilation efficacy and sealing was significantly different with the neck circumference (p<0.001), but thyromental distance did not show a significant difference (p>0.05).

Conclusion:

Findings demonstrated that neck circumference might be considered as an appropriate indicator for the selection of LMA size but neither the thyromental distance nor mouth opening. Further studies with a larger sample size are strongly recommended.

2022 American Society of Anesthesiologists Practice Guidelines for Management of the Difficult Airway

The American Society of Anesthesiologists; All India Difficult Airway Association; European Airway Management Society; European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care; Italian Society of Anesthesiology, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care; Learning, Teaching and Investigation Difficult Airway Group; Society for Airway Management; Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia; Society for Head and Neck Anesthesia; Society for Pediatric Anesthesia; Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists; and the Trauma Anesthesiology Society present an updated report of the Practice Guidelines for Management of the Difficult Airway.

Risk factors for difficult Laryngeal Mask Airway LMA-Supreme™ (LMAS) placement in adults: a multicentric prospective observational study in an Italian population

BACKGROUND

Supraglottic airway devices (SADs) are precious tools for airway management in both routine and rescue situations; few studies have analyzed the risk factors for their difficult insertion.

METHODS

The aim of this study was to identify the risk factors for difficult insertion for a specific SAD, the Laryngeal Mask Airway LMA-Supreme™ (LMAS). This was a prospective multicentric observational study on a cohort of Italian adult patients receiving general anesthesia for elective surgery. The possible causes of difficulty in LMAS placement (difficulty in insertion or unsatisfactory ventilation) were identified based on literature and on the opinion of international airway management experts. A dedicated datasheet was prepared to collect patients' data, including anthropometric-parameters and parameters for the prediction of difficult airway management, as well as technical choices for the use of LMAS. Data were analyzed to discover the risk factors for difficult LMAS placement and the association between each risk factor and the proportion of incorrect positioning was evaluated through the relative risk and its confidence interval.

RESULTS

Four hundred thirty-two patients were enrolled; seventy required two or more attempts to insert the LMAS; nine required a change of strategy. At multivariate analysis, the following factors were significantly associated with difficult LMAS placement: Mallampati III-IV with either phonation or not; inter-incisor distance < 3 cm; reduced neck mobility; no administration of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs).

CONCLUSIONS

The alignment of the laryngeal and pharyngeal axes seems to facilitate the procedure, together with NMBA administration; on the contrary, Mallampati grade III-IV are associated with difficult LMAS placement.

Canadian Airway Focus Group updated consensus-based recommendations for management of the difficult airway: part 2. Planning and implementing safe management of the patient with an anticipated difficult airway

PURPOSE

Since the last Canadian Airway Focus Group (CAFG) guidelines were published in 2013, the published airway management literature has expanded substantially. The CAFG therefore re-convened to examine this literature and update practice recommendations. This second of two articles addresses airway evaluation, decision-making, and safe implementation of an airway management strategy when difficulty is anticipated.

SOURCE

Canadian Airway Focus Group members, including anesthesia, emergency medicine, and critical care physicians were assigned topics to search. Searches were run in the Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL databases. Results were presented to the group and discussed during video conferences every two weeks from April 2018 to July 2020. These CAFG recommendations are based on the best available published evidence. Where high-quality evidence is lacking, statements are based on group consensus.

FINDINGS AND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

Prior to airway management, a documented strategy should be formulated for every patient, based on airway evaluation. Bedside examination should seek predictors of difficulty with face-mask ventilation (FMV), tracheal intubation using video- or direct laryngoscopy (VL or DL), supraglottic airway use, as well as emergency front of neck airway access. Patient physiology and contextual issues should also be assessed. Predicted difficulty should prompt careful decision-making on how most safely to proceed with airway management. Awake tracheal intubation may provide an extra margin of safety when impossible VL or DL is predicted, when difficulty is predicted with more than one mode of airway management (e.g., tracheal intubation and FMV), or when predicted difficulty coincides with significant physiologic or contextual issues. If managing the patient after the induction of general anesthesia despite predicted difficulty, team briefing should include triggers for moving from one technique to the next, expert assistance should be sourced, and required equipment should be present. Unanticipated difficulty with airway management can always occur, so the airway manager should have a strategy for difficulty occurring in every patient, and the institution must make difficult airway equipment readily available. Tracheal extubation of the at-risk patient must also be carefully planned, including assessment of the patient's tolerance for withdrawal of airway support and whether re-intubation might be difficult.

Comparison of the standard and triple airway maneuvering techniques for i-gel™ placement in patients undergoing elective surgery: a randomized controlled study

PURPOSE

The i-gel is a supraglottic airway device with non-inflatable cuff which can suffer insertion failure if its standard placement technique is implemented. The aim of this study was to compare the placement technique proposed by the manufacturer of i-gel with the triple airway maneuver in terms of successful device insertion time and first-attempt success.

METHODS

After ethics committee approval, 103 ASA I-III patients were randomly allocated to the standard or triple airway maneuver groups. In the standard Group, the i-gel was inserted in the sniffing position while, in the triple group, it was inserted using the triple airway maneuver consisting of head tilt, jaw thrust, and open mouth. The time taken for successful insertion, first-attempt success rate, i-gel position, airway complications, and hemodynamic responses were assessed.

RESULTS

Between the two groups patient characteristics were similar. Time for successful insertion was significantly shorter in the triple group (20 ± 7 s) than with the standard technique (32 ± 11 s; p < 0.001). Successful insertion at the first attempt was 78% and 92% for the standard and triple group, respectively (p = 0.092). The i-gel position, airway complications, and hemodynamic responses were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

The triple airway maneuver required less i-gel insertion time as compared with the standard placement technique. First-attempt success rates were similar with both techniques, although the triple airway maneuver was superior to the standard method as a rescue technique in failed insertions. We therefore recommend use of the triple airway maneuver in i-gel insertion.