• Int J Surg · Apr 2019

    Meta Analysis Comparative Study

    The impact of laryngeal mask versus other airways on perioperative respiratory adverse events in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

    • Lingzhi Li, Zhimin Zhang, Zihan Yao, Hongjie Wang, Hebin Wang, Haishui An, and Jun Yao.
    • Anesthesiology Department, Affiliated Hospital of Hebei University, Baoding, 071000, Hebei, China.
    • Int J Surg. 2019 Apr 1; 64: 40-48.

    BackgroundIncreasing studies have shown that the use of laryngeal mask airways (LMAs) improved the perioperative respiratory adverse events (PRAEs) in children. However, the results of some of these studies still remained controversial as their sample sizes were small. A systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to evaluate the impact of LMAs in decreasing PRAEs in children.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science up to May 29, 2018 to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which analyzed and evaluated the impact of LMAs in decreasing PRAEs in children. Participants were randomly assigned to receive LMAs (the intervention group) or other airways (the control group). We studied PRAEs which included breath apnea, laryngospasm, desaturation, cough, fever, pulmonary rales and pulmonary infection. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated to compare the outcomes of the groups. We also performed subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis to evaluate the impact of LMAs on further decreasing PRAEs. Two reviewers assessed the trial quality and extracted the data independently. All statistical analyses were performed using the standard statistical procedures provided in the Review Manager 5.2.ResultsTwelve RCTs (N = 1577 participants) were identified. Comparing with other airways, significant reduction were found in the overall PRAEs (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.39-0.70; P < 0.0001), major PRAEs (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.29-0.79; P = 0.004) as well as minor PRAEs (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.45-0.74; P < 0.0001) in patients managed with LMAs. When compared with endotracheal tubes (ETTs), LMAs also significantly reduced PRAEs. Further analysis also found that LMAs reduced the incidences of postoperative cough (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31-0.63; P < 0.00001), pulmonary rales (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44-0.87; P = 0.006) and infections (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.13-0.61; P = 0.001) in children.ConclusionsLMAs reduced the incidences of many PRAEs in children and should be used as one of anaesthesia methods for children.Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.