Safety, efficacy and airway complications of the flexible laryngeal mask airway in functional endoscopic sinus surgery: A retrospective study of 6661 patients

Emergence characteristics comparing endotracheal tube to reinforced laryngeal mask airway during endoscopic sinus surgery - A randomised controlled study

Background and Aims

During endoscopic sinus surgery, anaesthetic conditions significantly impact the intraoperative surgical field and bleeding during emergence. While the endotracheal tube (ETT) has been traditionally used in sinus surgery, a reinforced laryngeal mask airway (RLMA) that produces less upper airway stimulation may result in smoother emergence.

Methods

A randomised controlled trial of 72 patients undergoing elective sinus surgery was conducted, with the allocation of airway technique to either ETT with a throat pack or RLMA. The primary outcome measure was emergence time, measured by time to opening eyes on commands at the cessation of anaesthesia, and the secondary outcomes were time to removal of airway device, remifentanil use, procedure times, mean arterial pressure (MAP) and the RLMA grade of blood contamination. The continuous variables were analysed using Student's t-tests and discrete variables, count tables were analysed using Fisher's exact tests.

Results

There was no significant difference in the emergence time between the ETT and RLMA groups (P = 0.83). Remifentanil use was significantly higher in the ETT group than in the RLMA group (P = 0.022). The ETT group showed a significantly increased total anaesthetic time (P = 0.01). MAP was not significant during preinduction, maintenance or post-RMLA removal. The highest grade of contamination was grade 2 in RLMA. RLMA had lower rates of postoperative adverse events.

Conclusions

RLMA comparable to ETT in terms of emergence time. The RMLA group had lower remifentanil use, anaesthesia duration and fewer postoperative adverse events such as cough and throat pain.

Comparison of two different flexible laryngeal airway masks in pediatric ophthalmic surgeries: A retrospective study

This study aimed to compare the clinical effects of the Medis flexible laryngeal mask airway (FLMA) with those of the Ambu AuraFlex FLMA in pediatric ophthalmic surgery. A total of 80 patients, aged 1 to 5 years, in American Society of Anesthesiologists I-II, weighing ≥10 kg, and without any existing airway difficulties, were enrolled in this study. The patients were randomly divided into Group M (Medis FLMA) and Group A (Ambu AuraFlex FLMA). The time of insertion, number of attempts, finger assistance required, manipulation, oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP), fiberoptic grade of view, and complications such as bloodstaining, hoarseness, and sore throat were recorded. Group M showed a significantly higher OLP than did Group A (P = .002); however, Group M required more finger assistance than did Group A (P = .009). There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of insertion time, number of attempts, manipulation, fiberoptic view grade, or complications. Both the Medis and Ambu AuraFlex FLMA can provide smooth ventilation during pediatric ophthalmic surgeries. The Medis FLMA showed a higher OLP than did the Ambu AuraFlex FLMA but required more finger assistance during insertion.

Inhalational Anesthesia is Noninferior to Total Intravenous Anesthesia in Terms of Surgical Field Visibility in Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: A Randomized, Double-Blind Study

Purpose

Regarding the quality of surgical field visibility, previous studies and meta-analyses comparing total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and inhalational anesthesia (IA) in endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) have presented inconsistent findings. Considering that IA has some advantages over TIVA, we aimed to test the hypothesis that IA with sevoflurane-remifentanil is noninferior to TIVA with propofol-remifentanil in terms of surgical field visibility quality during ESS.

Patients and Methods

In this randomized, double-blind, noninferiority clinical trial, 110 adult patients were recruited and randomly assigned to the IA (n = 55) or TIVA (n = 55) group. The primary outcome was the quality of surgical field visibility, as measured by the intraoperative mean Boezaart score (BS). Additionally, post hoc analysis was performed for patients with Lund-Mackay scores of ≤ 12 or > 12. Other secondary outcomes included total blood loss, bleeding rate, total fluid, mean arterial pressure, heart rate, dose of remifentanil for anesthesia maintenance, end-tidal CO₂, length of stay in the post anesthesia care unit, postoperative hypoxemia, sore throat, and nausea.

Results

The intraoperative mean BS of the IA group was noninferior to that of the TIVA group [medians with interquartile ranges (IQRs), 2.0 (1.7-2.2) vs 2.0 (1.8-2.1), P = 0.923]. Moreover, post hoc analysis confirmed no difference between IA and TIVA for patients with Lund-Mackay scores ≤ 12 (P = 0.403) or > 12 (P = 0.226). No differences in total blood loss, bleeding rate, or other intraoperative indicators or complications were observed between groups.

Conclusion

Regarding surgical field visibility during ESS, IA with sevoflurane-remifentanil is noninferior to TIVA with propofol-remifentanil anesthesia maintenance.