Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2021; 38(03): 231-236
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1696643
Original Article

A Randomized Crossover Comparison of Airway Sealing with the Laryngeal Mask Airway Ambu AuraFlex at Three Intracuff Pressures in Pediatric Laparoscopic Surgery

Xiang Liu
1   Department of Anesthesiology, Hebei Medical University Affiliated Children's Hospital of Hebei Province, Shi Jiazhuang, China
,
Xiaona Tan
2   Department of Neurological Rehabilitation, Hebei Medical University Affiliated Children's Hospital of Hebei Province, Shi Jiazhuang, China
,
Qi Zhang
1   Department of Anesthesiology, Hebei Medical University Affiliated Children's Hospital of Hebei Province, Shi Jiazhuang, China
,
Li Qiao
1   Department of Anesthesiology, Hebei Medical University Affiliated Children's Hospital of Hebei Province, Shi Jiazhuang, China
,
Lei Shi
1   Department of Anesthesiology, Hebei Medical University Affiliated Children's Hospital of Hebei Province, Shi Jiazhuang, China
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective An adequate intracuff pressure is important to ensure sufficient sealing function when using supraglottic airway devices to protect the airway from secretions and achieve adequate positive pressure ventilation. The aim of this study is to analyze a feasible and effective alternative Ambu AuraFlex intracuff pressure in child's laparoscopic surgery.

Study Design Seventy-two children were included in this study. After insertion of the laryngeal mask airway AuraFlex, oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) was measured at intracuff pressures of 10, 30, and 60-cmH2O according to one of six sequences produced on the basis of 3 × 6 Williams crossover design. During the intraoperative period, AuraFlex was maintained using the last intracuff pressure of the allocated sequence. Oropharyngeal leak pressure, peak airway pressure, the fiberoptic view, mucosal change, and complications were assessed at three intracuff pressures.

Results The OLP at the intracuff pressure of 10 cmH2O was significantly lower than that of 30 cmH2O (2# 18.1 ± 1.5 vs. 19.5 ± 1.4 cmH2O, p = 0.001; 2.5# 17.7 ± 1.2 vs. 20.2 ± 1.4, p = 0.001) and 60 cmH2O (2# 18.1 ± 1.5 vs. 20.0 ± 1.3 cmH2O, p = 0.002; 2.5# 17.7 ± 1.2 vs. 20.8 ± 1.1, p = 0.003). Compared with the peak airway pressure in pre-and postpneumoperitoneum, the OLP was significantly higher. Subgroup analysis showed no differences in mucosal change and complications.

Conclusion Intracuff pressures of 30 may be sufficient for the Ambu AuraFlex in child's laparoscopic surgery, and there may be no added benefit of an intracuff pressure of 60 cmH2O, as oropharyngeal leak pressures were similar.

Keywords

supraglottic airway - children - airway management - anesthesia - general - surgical procedures - laparoscopic


Publication History

Received: 16 December 2018

Accepted: 26 July 2019

Article published online:
17 September 2019

© 2019. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Brain AI. The laryngeal mask—a new concept in airway management. Br J Anaesth 1983; 55 (08) 801-805
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Zhang L, Seet E, Mehta V. et al. Oropharyngeal leak pressure with the laryngeal mask airway Supreme™ at different intracuff pressures: a randomized controlled trial. Can J Anaesth 2011; 58 (07) 624-629
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Brimacombe J, Berry A, Brain AI. Optimal intracuff pressures with the laryngeal mask. Br J Anaesth 1996; 77 (02) 295-296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Licina A, Chambers NA, Hullett B, Erb TO, von Ungern-Sternberg BS. Lower cuff pressures improve the seal of pediatric laryngeal mask airways. Paediatr Anaesth 2008; 18 (10) 952-956
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Seet E, Yousaf F, Gupta S, Subramanyam R, Wong DT, Chung F. Use of manometry for laryngeal mask airway reduces postoperative pharyngolaryngeal adverse events: a prospective, randomized trial. Anesthesiology 2010; 112 (03) 652-657
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 McHardy FE, Chung F. Postoperative sore throat: cause, prevention and treatment. Anaesthesia 1999; 54 (05) 444-453
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Theiler LG, Kleine-Brueggeney M, Luepold B. et al. Performance of the pediatric-sized i-gel compared with the Ambu AuraOnce laryngeal mask in anesthetized and ventilated children. Anesthesiology 2011; 115 (01) 102-110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hockings L, Heaney M, Chambers NA, Erb TO, von Ungern-Sternberg BS. Reduced air leakage by adjusting the cuff pressure in pediatric supraglottic airway s during spontaneous ventilation. Paediatr Anaesth 2010; 20 (04) 313-317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Jagannathan N, Sohn L, Sommers K. et al. A randomized comparison of the supraglottic airway supreme™ and supraglottic airway unique™ in infants and children: does cuff pressure influence leak pressure?. Paediatr Anaesth 2013; 23 (10) 927-933
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Keller C, Brimacombe JR, Keller K, Morris R. Comparison of four methods for assessing airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in adult patients. Br J Anaesth 1999; 82 (02) 286-287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Verghese C, Berlet J, Kapila A, Pollard R. Clinical assessment of the single use laryngeal mask airway—the LMA-unique. Br J Anaesth 1998; 80 (05) 677-679
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Greif R, Theiler L. The use of supraglottic airway devices in pediatric laparoscopic surgery. Minerva Anestesiol 2010; 76 (08) 575-576
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Teoh WH, Lee KM, Suhitharan T, Yahaya Z, Teo MM, Sia AT. Comparison of the supraglottic airway supreme vs the i-gel in paralysed patients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopic surgery with controlled ventilation. Anaesthesia 2010; 65 (12) 1173-1179
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hohlrieder M, Brimacombe J, Eschertzhuber S, Ulmer H, Keller C. A study of airway management using the ProSeal LMA laryngeal mask airway compared with the tracheal tube on postoperative analgesia requirements following gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. Anaesthesia 2007; 62 (09) 913-918
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Ozdamar D, Güvenç BH, Toker K, Solak M, Ekingen G. Comparison of the effect of LMA and ETT on ventilation and intragastric pressure in pediatric laparoscopic procedures. Minerva Anestesiol 2010; 76 (08) 592-599
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Asai T, Howell TK, Koga K, Morris S. Appropriate size and inflation of the supraglottic airway. Br J Anaesth 1998; 80: 4704
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Loke GP, Tan SM, Ng AS. Appropriate size of laryngeal mask airway for children. Anaesth Intensive Care 2002; 30 (06) 771-774
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Choi KW, Lee JR, Oh JT, Kim DW, Kim MS. The randomized crossover comparison of airway sealing with the laryngeal mask airway Supreme(™) at three different intracuff pressures in children. Paediatr Anaesth 2014; 24 (10) 1080-1087
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Burgard G, Möllhoff T, Prien T. The effect of laryngeal mask cuff pressure on postoperative sore throat incidence. J Clin Anesth 1996; 8 (03) 198-201
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Nott MR, Noble PD, Parmar M. Reducing the incidence of sore throat with the laryngeal mask airway. Eur J Anaesthesiol 1998; 15 (02) 153-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Wong JG, Heaney M, Chambers NA, Erb TO, von Ungern-Sternberg BS. Impact of laryngeal mask airway cuff pressures on the incidence of sore throat in children. Paediatr Anaesth 2009; 19 (05) 464-469
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar