Download PDF
Anästhesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther 2014; 49(3): 152-161
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1372229
Fachwissen
Anästhesiologie
© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

Erweiterte Indikationen der Larynxmaske – Wo liegen die Limitationen?

Advanced indications of the laryngeal mask – Limitations of use
Sebastian G Russo
,
Hinnerk Wulf
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
07 April 2014 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Die Verwendung extraglottischer Atemwegshilfen (EGA) erfreut sich bezüglich klassischer Indikationen, z.B. elektiver Extremitäteneingriffe in Rückenlage, einer hohen Akzeptanz. Doch so eindeutig auch der Stellenwert von EGA im Rahmen einer unerwartet schwierige Atemwegssicherung ist, wird ihr Einsatz bei den erweiterten Indikationen, z.B. bei laparoskopischen Eingriffen oder bei Vorliegen einer Adipositas, kontrovers diskutiert. Dieser Artikel bietet eine möglichst evidenzbasierte Übersicht, die als Entscheidungshilfe für – oder in begründeten Fällen auch gegen – die Anwendung einer EGA bei den genannten Indikationen dienen kann. Weiterhin werden Empfehlungen zum Vorgehen während der Verwendung bei erweiterten Indikationen gegeben.

Abstract

The use of extraglottic airway devices (EGA) is well accepted for airway management for certain classic indications such as general anaesthesia during limb surgery in the supine position. Furthermore, EGA have been deemed a useful tool during the management of an unrecognized difficult airway. On the other hand, the use of EGA has been controversially discussed for advanced indications such as during general anaesthesia during laparoscopic surgery and in coexisting morbid obesity. This article provides an evidence based review of the role of EGA during a variety of indications and is designed to assist with the decision making process of whether an EGA may or may not be appropriate for a particular indication. Moreover, recommendations are given for advanced indications.

Kernaussagen

  • Respirations- und Gastrointestinaltrakt werden durch die Abdichtung der Maskenspitze im oberen Ösophagussphinkter und die Integration eine Drainagekanals voneinander getrennt.

  • Für die Anwendung von EGA bei erweiterten Indikationen werden Modelle mit Drainagekanal unbedingt empfohlen.

  • Die Anlage eines Pneumoperitoneums scheint die Gefahr von Reflux und Regurgitation nicht zu erhöhen – eines der Hauptargumente gegen den Einsatz von Larynxmasken bei laparoskopischen Eingriffen.

  • Die eigentliche Limitation von EGA bei erweiterten Indikationen sind inadäquat niedrige oropharyngeale Verschlussdrücke (OLP). Der OLP muss eine sichere Ventilation des Patienten auch bei erhöhten Beatmungsdrücken, inkl. der Anlage eines PEEP, ermöglichen.

  • Die Narkoseführung mit einer EGA bedarf einer hohen Wachsamkeit, um vermeidbare intraoperative Komplikationen zu umgehen.

Schlüsselwörter:

Larynxmaske - Laparoskopie - Adipositas

Key words:

laryngeal mask airway - laparoscopy - obesity

Ergänzendes Material

 

  • Literaturverzeichnis

  • 1 Timmermann A. Modernes Atemwegsmanagement - Aktuelle Konzepte für mehr Patientensicherheit. Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther 2009; 44: 246-255
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Goldmann K, Roettger C, Wulf H. Use of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway for pressure-controlled ventilation with and without positive end-expiratory pressure in paediatric patients: a randomized, controlled study. Br J Anaesth 2005; 95: 831-834
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Goldmann K, Roettger C, Wulf H. The size 1(1/2) ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in infants: a randomized, crossover investigation with the Classic laryngeal mask airway. Anesth Analg 2006; 102: 405-410
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Timmermann A, Byhahn C, Wenzel V et al. DGAInfo – Handlungsempfehlung für das präklinische Atemwegsmangement: Für Notärzte und Rettungsdienstpersonal. Anästh Intensivmed 2012; 53: 294-308
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Weiss M, Schmidt J, Eich C et al. DGAInfo – Handlungsempfehlungen zur Prävention und Behandlung des unerwartet schwierigen Atemweges in der Kinderanästhesie. Anästh Intensivmed 2011; 52
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Russo SG, Zink W, Herff H et al. Tod durch (k)einen Atemweg – Trauma durch die präklinische Atemwegssicherung?. Anaesthesist 2010; 59: 929-939
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Russo SG, Moerer O, Nickel EA et al. Extraglottische Atemwegshilfen auf der Intensivstation. Anaesthesist 2010; 59: 555-563
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Zoremba M, Aust H, Eberhart L et al. Comparison between intubation and the laryngeal mask airway in moderately obese adults. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2009; 53: 436-442
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Welsch P, Volk T. Retrospektiver Audit: Larynxmasken in Bauchlage bei elektiven Wirbelsäuleneingriffen – eine sinnvolle Alternative?. Anästh Intensiv 2013; 4: 172-180
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Linstedt U, Zenz M, Krull K et al. Laryngeal mask airway or endotracheal tube for percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy: a comparison of visibility of intratracheal structures. AnesthAnalg 2010; 110: 1076-1082
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Maltby JR, Beriault MT, Watson NC et al. Gastric distension and ventilation during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: LMA-Classic vs. tracheal intubation. CanJAnaesth 2000; 47: 622-626
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Maltby JR, Beriault MT, Watson NC et al. The LMA-ProSeal is an effective alternative to tracheal intubation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Can JAnaesth 2002; 49: 857-862
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Belena JM, Gracia JL, Ayala JL et al. The Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme for positive pressure ventilation during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J ClinAnesth 2011; 23: 456-460
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Belena JM, Nunez M, Anta D et al. Comparison of Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme and Laryngeal Mask Airway Proseal with respect to oropharyngeal leak pressure during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesth 2013; 30: 119-123
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Abdi W, Amathieu R, Adhoum A et al. Sparing the larynx during gynecological laparoscopy: a randomized trial comparing the LMA Supreme and the ETT. Acta Anaesth Scand 2010; 54: 141-146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Teoh WH, Lee KM, Suhitharan T et al. Comparison of the LMA Supreme vs the i-gel in paralysed patients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopic surgery with controlled ventilation. Anaesthesia 2010; 65: 1173-1179
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Dyer RA, James MF, Butwick AJ et al. The Proseal laryngeal mask airway and elective caesarean section. Anaesth Intensive Care author reply 2011; 39: 761-762
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Halaseh BK, Sukkar ZF, Hassan LH et al. The use of ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in caesarean section – experience in 3000 cases. Anaesth Intensive Care 2010; 38: 1023-1028
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Brimacombe J. Laryngeal Mask Anesthesie – Principles and Practice. Chapter Pathophysiology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders Ltd; 2004: 105-136
    Google Scholar
  • 20 John RE, Hill S, Hughes TJ. Airway protection by the laryngeal mask. A barrier to dye placed in the pharynx. Anaesthesia 1991; 46: 366-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Williams PJ, Bailey PM. Comparison of the reinforced laryngeal mask airway and tracheal intubation for adenotonsillectomy. Br J Anaesth 1993; 70: 30-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Russo SG, Cremer S, Eich C et al. Magnetic resonance imaging study of the in vivo position of the extraglottic airway devices i-gel and LMA-Supreme in anaesthetized human volunteers. Br JAnaesth 2012; 109: 996-1004
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Brimacombe JR. Positive pressure ventilation with the size 5 laryngeal mask. J ClinAnesth 1997; 9: 113-117
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Schmidbauer W, Genzwurker H, Ahlers O et al. Cadaver study of oesophageal insufflation with supraglottic airway devices during positive pressure ventilation in an obstructed airway. Br JAnaesth 2012; 109: 454-458
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Stix MS, Borromeo CJ, O'Connor Jr. CJ. Esophageal insufflation with normal fiberoptic positioning of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway. Anesth Analg table of contents 2002; 94
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Russo SG, Cremer S, Mühlhäuser U et al. Investigating the fluid seal of supraglottic airway devices in humans using indicator dye via the drainage tube: a potential roadmap for future studies. Open J Anesthesiol 2012; 2: 18-22
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Schmidbauer W, Bercker S, Volk T et al. Oesophageal seal of the novel supralaryngeal airway device I-Gel in comparison with the laryngeal mask airways Classic and ProSeal using a cadaver model. Br JAnaesth 2009; 102: 135-139
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Bercker S, Schmidbauer W, Volk T et al. A comparison of seal in seven supraglottic airway devices using a cadaver model of elevated esophageal pressure. Anesth Analg table of contents 2008; 106
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Mark DA. Protection from aspiration with the LMA-ProSeal after vomiting: a case report. Can JAnaesth 2003; 50: 78-80
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Brimacombe J, Keller C. Prime the ProSeal drain tube with lube from a tube!. Can JAnaesth 2005; 52: 338-339
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Jones MJ, Mitchell RW, Hindocha N. Effect of increased intra-abdominal pressure during laparoscopy on the lower esophageal sphincter. Anesth Analg 1989; 68: 63-65
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Tournadre JP, Chassard D, Berrada KR et al. Effect of pneumoperitoneum and Trendelenburg position on gastro-oesophageal reflux and lower oesophageal sphincter pressure. Br JAnaesth 1996; 76: 130-132
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Thorn K, Thorn SE, Wattwil M. The effects on the lower esophageal sphincter of sevoflurane induction and increased intra-abdominal pressure during laparoscopy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scan 2006; 50: 978-981
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Thorn K, Thorn SE, Wattwil M. The effects of cricoid pressure, remifentanil, and propofol on esophageal motility and the lower esophageal sphincter. Anesth Analg 2005; 100: 1200-1203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Shepherd KL, Holloway RH, Hillman DR et al. The impact of continuous positive airway pressure on the lower esophageal sphincter. AmericanJPhysiology – Gastrointestinal Liver Physiology 2007; 292: 1200-1205
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Fournier MR, Kerr PD, Shoenut JP et al. Effect of nasal continuous positive airway pressure on esophageal function. J Otolaryngol 1999; 28: 142-144
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Manning BJ, Winter DC, McGreal G et al. Nasogastric intubation causes gastroesophageal reflux in patients undergoing elective laparotomy. Surgery 2001; 130: 788-791
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Keller C, Brimacombe JR, Keller K et al. Comparison of four methods for assessing airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in adult patients. Br JAnaesth 1999; 82: 286-287
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Carron M, Veronese S, Gomiero W et al. Hemodynamic and hormonal stress responses to endotracheal tube and ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway for laparoscopic gastric banding. Anesthesiology 2012; 117: 309-320
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Murphy C, Wong DT. Airway management and oxygenation in obese patients. Can JAnaesth 2013; 60: 929-945
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Nicholson A, Cook TM, Smith AF et al. Supraglottic airway devices versus tracheal intubation for airway management during general anaesthesia in obese patients. Cochrane Database Syst Reviews CD 010105 2013; 9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 McGrath JP, McCaul C, Byrne PJ et al. Upper oesophageal sphincter function during general anaesthesia. Br JSurg 1996; 83: 1276-1278
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Goldmann K, Hoch N, Wulf H. Auswirkung einer neuromuskulären Blockade auf den Leckagedruck der ProSeal®-Kehlkopfmaske. Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther 2006; 41: 228-232
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Chen BZ, Tan L, Zhang L et al. Is muscle relaxant necessary in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery with a ProSeal LMA?. J Clin Anesth 2013; 25: 32-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Renes SH, Zwart R, Scheffer GJ et al. Lingual nerve injury following the use of an i-gel laryngeal mask. Anaesthesia 2011; 66: 226-227
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Thiruvenkatarajan V, Van Wijk RM, Elhalawani I et al. Lingual nerve neuropraxia following use of the Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme. J Clin Anesth DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2013.10.003. 2004;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Brimacombe J, Clarke G, Keller C. Lingual nerve injury associated with the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: a case report and review of the literature. Br J Anaesth 2005; 95: 420-423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Goldmann K, Dieterich J, Roessler M. Laryngopharyngeal mucosal injury after prolonged use of the ProSeal LMA in a porcine model: a pilot study. Can JAnaesth 2007; 54: 822-828
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Shin WJ, Cheong YS, Yang HS et al. The supraglottic airway I-gel in comparison with ProSeal laryngeal mask airway and classic laryngeal mask airway in anaesthetized patients. Eur JAnaesthesiol 2010; 27: 598-601
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Janakiraman C, Chethan DB, Wilkes AR et al. A randomised crossover trial comparing the i-gel supraglottic airway and classic laryngeal mask airway. Anaesthesia 2009; 64: 674-678
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Tiefenthaler W, Eschertzhuber S, Brimacombe J et al. A randomised, non-crossover study of the GuardianCPV Laryngeal Mask versus the LMA Supreme in paralysed, anaesthetised female patients. Anaesthesia 2013; 68: 600-604
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Russo SG, Cremer S, Galli T et al. Randomized comparison of the i-gel, the LMA Supreme, and the Laryngeal Tube Suction-D using clinical and fibreoptic assessments in elective patients. BMC Anesthesiol 2012; 12: 18-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Keller C, Brimacombe J. Pharyngeal mucosal pressures, airway sealing pressures, and fiberoptic position with the intubating versus the standard laryngeal mask airway. Anesthesiology 1999; 90: 1001-1006
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Thee C, Serocki G, Doerges V et al. Laryngeal tube S II, laryngeal tube S disposable, Fastrach laryngeal mask and Fastrach laryngeal mask disposable during elective surgery: a randomized controlled comparison between reusable and disposable supraglottic airway devices. Eur JAnaesthesiol 2010; 27: 468-472
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Ragazzi R, Finessi L, Farinelli I et al. LMA Supreme vs i-gel – a comparison of insertion success in novices. Anaesthesia 2012; 67: 384-388
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Theiler L, Gutzmann M, Kleine-Brueggeney M et al. I-gel supraglottic airway in clinical practice: a prospective observational multicentre study. Br JAnaesth 2012; 109: 990-995
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Galgon RE, Schroeder KM, Han S et al. The air-Q® intubating laryngeal airway vs the LMA-ProSealTM: a prospective, randomised trial of airway seal pressure. Anaesthesia 2011; 66: 1093-1100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Joffe AM, Liew EC, Galgon RE et al. The second-generation air-Q intubating laryngeal mask for airway maintenance during anaesthesia in adults: a report of the first 70 uses. Anaesth Intensive Care 2011; 39: 40-45
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Stix MS, O'Connor Jr. CJ. Depth of insertion of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway. BrJ Anaesth 2003; 90: 235-237
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 O'Connor Jr. CJ, Borromeo CJ, Stix MS. Assessing ProSeal laryngeal mask positioning: the suprasternal notch test. Anesth Analg author reply 2002; 94
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Stix MS, O'Connor Jr. CJ. Maximum minute ventilation test for the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway. Anesth Analg table of contents 2002; 96
    PubMedGoogle Scholar