• Guanghui An, Bin Fang, and Zhaomin Wang.
• Department of Anesthesiology, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. E-mail. gh_An@163.com.
• Saudi Med J. 2019 Jul 1; 40 (7): 687-693.

ObjectivesTo assess the insertion and ventilation of the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) classic while using different head positions with or without muscle relaxant.MethodsThis is a double-blind randomized clinical trial. Patients scheduled for ureteral calculus surgery at Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai, China were recruited between November 2017 and November 2018. A total of 132 adults were consecutively selected. Patients were randomly divided into 4 groups according to head positioning and muscle relaxant use. An 8-cm-high pillow was used to achieve the sniffing position. The insertion time, initial peak pressure (Ppeak), mean pressure (Pmean) of the airway during intermittent positive pressure ventilation (primary endpoint) and fiberoptic score of the LMA position (secondary endpoint) were evaluated via electronic bronchoscopy through the mask bar. All adverse events were recorded. Results: Data were analyzed by ANOVA, 2-way ANOVA, Chi-squared, Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel, and Kruskal-Wallis tests. The insertion time required for the first attempt, fiberoptic score, Ppeak and Pmean did not differ among the groups. However, the incidence of adverse events in groups not using muscle relaxant was higher than in those using muscle relaxant. Conclusion: Use of a sniffing position and muscle relaxant slightly eased the insertion of the LMA but did not affect the fiberoptic score or ventilation parameters. Using a muscle relaxant, but not the sniffing position, reduced the incidence of adverse effects.

32 keywords...

hide…