Cargando…

Insertion of LMA Classic™ with and without digital intraoral manipulation in anesthetized unparalyzed patients

BACKGROUND: The standard recommended insertion technique for LMA Classic™ requires the insertion of index finger into the oral cavity. Several anesthesiologists are reluctant to do this. We conducted this study to evaluate the modified technique of insertion of LMA Classic™ (not requiring insertion...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Krishna, Handattu M, Kamath, Shyamsunder, Shenoy, Laxmi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3511946/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23225929
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0970-9185.101923
_version_ 1782251669900230656
author Krishna, Handattu M
Kamath, Shyamsunder
Shenoy, Laxmi
author_facet Krishna, Handattu M
Kamath, Shyamsunder
Shenoy, Laxmi
author_sort Krishna, Handattu M
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The standard recommended insertion technique for LMA Classic™ requires the insertion of index finger into the oral cavity. Several anesthesiologists are reluctant to do this. We conducted this study to evaluate the modified technique of insertion of LMA Classic™ (not requiring insertion of fingers into the patient's mouth) against the standard index finger insertion technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, randomized, comparative study was conducted on 200 consenting patients. Patients suitable for anesthetic with LMA Classic™ were randomized to standard technique group (standard insertion technique) and modified technique group (technique not requiring digital intraoral manipulation). Laryngeal mask airway (LMA) was inserted by five designated anesthesiologists. Anesthetic protocol was standardized. Time taken to achieve an effective airway, ease of insertion, glottic view obtained through LMA, and incidence of sore throat were assessed. RESULTS: Patient characteristics and duration of surgery were comparable between the groups. Time to achieve an effective airway was comparable [18.5 (8) s with standard technique and 19.7 (10) s with modified technique; data are mean (standard deviation)]. Ease of insertion (92 easy with standard technique and 91 easy with modified technique), success rate (99% in both the groups), glottic view with fiberoptic bronchoscope, and sore throat incidence (six patients with standard technique and eight patients with modified technique) were comparable. The first attempt success rate was significantly higher with the standard technique (98 patients in the standard technique group and 91 patients in the modified technique group). CONCLUSIONS: LMA Classic™ can be inserted successfully without the need to insert index finger into patient's mouth, though the first attempt success rate is higher with the standard technique.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3511946
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-35119462012-12-05 Insertion of LMA Classic™ with and without digital intraoral manipulation in anesthetized unparalyzed patients Krishna, Handattu M Kamath, Shyamsunder Shenoy, Laxmi J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol Original Article BACKGROUND: The standard recommended insertion technique for LMA Classic™ requires the insertion of index finger into the oral cavity. Several anesthesiologists are reluctant to do this. We conducted this study to evaluate the modified technique of insertion of LMA Classic™ (not requiring insertion of fingers into the patient's mouth) against the standard index finger insertion technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, randomized, comparative study was conducted on 200 consenting patients. Patients suitable for anesthetic with LMA Classic™ were randomized to standard technique group (standard insertion technique) and modified technique group (technique not requiring digital intraoral manipulation). Laryngeal mask airway (LMA) was inserted by five designated anesthesiologists. Anesthetic protocol was standardized. Time taken to achieve an effective airway, ease of insertion, glottic view obtained through LMA, and incidence of sore throat were assessed. RESULTS: Patient characteristics and duration of surgery were comparable between the groups. Time to achieve an effective airway was comparable [18.5 (8) s with standard technique and 19.7 (10) s with modified technique; data are mean (standard deviation)]. Ease of insertion (92 easy with standard technique and 91 easy with modified technique), success rate (99% in both the groups), glottic view with fiberoptic bronchoscope, and sore throat incidence (six patients with standard technique and eight patients with modified technique) were comparable. The first attempt success rate was significantly higher with the standard technique (98 patients in the standard technique group and 91 patients in the modified technique group). CONCLUSIONS: LMA Classic™ can be inserted successfully without the need to insert index finger into patient's mouth, though the first attempt success rate is higher with the standard technique. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2012 /pmc/articles/PMC3511946/ /pubmed/23225929 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0970-9185.101923 Text en Copyright: © Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Krishna, Handattu M
Kamath, Shyamsunder
Shenoy, Laxmi
Insertion of LMA Classic™ with and without digital intraoral manipulation in anesthetized unparalyzed patients
title Insertion of LMA Classic™ with and without digital intraoral manipulation in anesthetized unparalyzed patients
title_full Insertion of LMA Classic™ with and without digital intraoral manipulation in anesthetized unparalyzed patients
title_fullStr Insertion of LMA Classic™ with and without digital intraoral manipulation in anesthetized unparalyzed patients
title_full_unstemmed Insertion of LMA Classic™ with and without digital intraoral manipulation in anesthetized unparalyzed patients
title_short Insertion of LMA Classic™ with and without digital intraoral manipulation in anesthetized unparalyzed patients
title_sort insertion of lma classic™ with and without digital intraoral manipulation in anesthetized unparalyzed patients
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3511946/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23225929
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0970-9185.101923
work_keys_str_mv AT krishnahandattum insertionoflmaclassicwithandwithoutdigitalintraoralmanipulationinanesthetizedunparalyzedpatients
AT kamathshyamsunder insertionoflmaclassicwithandwithoutdigitalintraoralmanipulationinanesthetizedunparalyzedpatients
AT shenoylaxmi insertionoflmaclassicwithandwithoutdigitalintraoralmanipulationinanesthetizedunparalyzedpatients