• Michael A Acquaviva, Nicole D Horn, and Sandeep K Gupta.
• Riley Hospital for Children at IU Health, Indianapolis, IN.
• J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 2014 Jul 1;59(1):54-6.

ObjectivesThe present study examined the safety and efficacy of a laryngeal mask airway (LMA), compared with an endotracheal tube (ETT), for children undergoing elective esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD).MethodsA total of 84 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) patients, status I to III, were randomly assigned to receive an ETT or LMA. All participants were premedicated with midazolam 0.5 mg/kg (up to 15 mg). Airway device placement occurred after induction with 8% sevoflurane and 100% oxygen, placement of an intravenous catheter, and intravenous lidocaine 2 mg/kg up to 100 mg. The following data were collected: time from induction of anesthesia to placement of the airway device, time from end of procedure to arrival in the postoperative acute care unit (PACU), time in the PACU, time from arrival in the operating room (OR) to discharge, vomiting after the procedure, nausea requiring medicine, lowest oxygen saturation, highest concentration of sevoflurane, highest pain, amount of pain medicine, adverse events, and satisfaction of doctor performing the EGD.ResultsGroup ETT had higher time from room arrival to airway placement, mask to airway placement, room arrival time to discharge, mask placement to discharge, airway placement to discharge, and end of procedure to discharge. Group ETT had a higher proportion of patients with vomiting than group LMA. No statistical difference was noted in endoscopist satisfaction when comparing ETT and LMA. The ETT group had 3 adverse events, including laryngospasm (n=2) and asthma attack (n=1).ConclusionsThe LMA appears to be an acceptable and safe alternative for otherwise healthy children undergoing routine EGD. Benefits appear to be decreased incidence of vomiting and overall decreased time spent in the hospital.

28 keywords...

hide…