Cargando…

Validation of manufacturers’ laryngeal mask airway size selection standard: a large retrospective study

BACKGROUND: Laryngeal mask airway (LMA) is a prominent supraglottic airway device, widely used especially in difficult airway management. However, the LMA sizes recommended by the manufacturers are not always well matched in clinical practice, which leads to complications. To date, there are rare mo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ren, Yaoyao, Cao, Cuicui, Liang, Xuan, Ju, Zhihai, Zhang, Ling, Cui, Xu, Wang, Guyan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7940924/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33708823
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-4838
_version_ 1783662047756550144
author Ren, Yaoyao
Cao, Cuicui
Liang, Xuan
Ju, Zhihai
Zhang, Ling
Cui, Xu
Wang, Guyan
author_facet Ren, Yaoyao
Cao, Cuicui
Liang, Xuan
Ju, Zhihai
Zhang, Ling
Cui, Xu
Wang, Guyan
author_sort Ren, Yaoyao
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Laryngeal mask airway (LMA) is a prominent supraglottic airway device, widely used especially in difficult airway management. However, the LMA sizes recommended by the manufacturers are not always well matched in clinical practice, which leads to complications. To date, there are rare models to validate whether the manufacturers’ standard is suitable for use in clinical practice. METHODS: A total of 58,956 patients undergoing general anesthesia using LMA device were included in the study between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2018, to validate the adherence rate of LMA sizes according to the manufacturers’ recommendations. A logistic regression analysis was performed based on the actual LMA size used in clinical practice to establish separately size selection guidelines with gender, weight, and age as variables in adults, adolescents, and children. RESULTS: LMA insertions were analyzed in 50,776 (86.1%) adults, 3,548 (6%) adolescents, and 4,632 (7.9%) children. Suitability of manufacturers’ recommendations was higher in children [male: 86.02%; female: 85.09%] than adults [male: 72.75%; female: 78.13%] or adolescents [male: 73.4%; female: 70.79%]. For adults and adolescents, LMA size was better predicted using the regression model rather than the manufacturers’ recommendations [male adults: 82.4% (81.16–83.57%) vs. 73.21% (71.79–74.59%), P<0.05; female adults: 87.82% (86.65–88.9%) vs. 77.07% (75.6–78.48%), P<0.05; male adolescents: 79.45% (74.86–83.4%) vs. 72.05% (67.09–76.53%), P<0.05; female adolescents: 78.4% (71.11–84.31%) vs. 72.22% (64.54–78.82%), P<0.05]. For children, there was equal performance suitability using the regression model and the manufacturers’ recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: The model-based guidelines may provide more accurate directions for LMA size selection for adolescents and adults than the manufacturers’ weight-based recommendations, whereas the manufacturers’ recommendation in children is consistent with clinical practice.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7940924
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher AME Publishing Company
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79409242021-03-10 Validation of manufacturers’ laryngeal mask airway size selection standard: a large retrospective study Ren, Yaoyao Cao, Cuicui Liang, Xuan Ju, Zhihai Zhang, Ling Cui, Xu Wang, Guyan Ann Transl Med Original Article BACKGROUND: Laryngeal mask airway (LMA) is a prominent supraglottic airway device, widely used especially in difficult airway management. However, the LMA sizes recommended by the manufacturers are not always well matched in clinical practice, which leads to complications. To date, there are rare models to validate whether the manufacturers’ standard is suitable for use in clinical practice. METHODS: A total of 58,956 patients undergoing general anesthesia using LMA device were included in the study between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2018, to validate the adherence rate of LMA sizes according to the manufacturers’ recommendations. A logistic regression analysis was performed based on the actual LMA size used in clinical practice to establish separately size selection guidelines with gender, weight, and age as variables in adults, adolescents, and children. RESULTS: LMA insertions were analyzed in 50,776 (86.1%) adults, 3,548 (6%) adolescents, and 4,632 (7.9%) children. Suitability of manufacturers’ recommendations was higher in children [male: 86.02%; female: 85.09%] than adults [male: 72.75%; female: 78.13%] or adolescents [male: 73.4%; female: 70.79%]. For adults and adolescents, LMA size was better predicted using the regression model rather than the manufacturers’ recommendations [male adults: 82.4% (81.16–83.57%) vs. 73.21% (71.79–74.59%), P<0.05; female adults: 87.82% (86.65–88.9%) vs. 77.07% (75.6–78.48%), P<0.05; male adolescents: 79.45% (74.86–83.4%) vs. 72.05% (67.09–76.53%), P<0.05; female adolescents: 78.4% (71.11–84.31%) vs. 72.22% (64.54–78.82%), P<0.05]. For children, there was equal performance suitability using the regression model and the manufacturers’ recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: The model-based guidelines may provide more accurate directions for LMA size selection for adolescents and adults than the manufacturers’ weight-based recommendations, whereas the manufacturers’ recommendation in children is consistent with clinical practice. AME Publishing Company 2021-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7940924/ /pubmed/33708823 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-4838 Text en 2021 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Ren, Yaoyao
Cao, Cuicui
Liang, Xuan
Ju, Zhihai
Zhang, Ling
Cui, Xu
Wang, Guyan
Validation of manufacturers’ laryngeal mask airway size selection standard: a large retrospective study
title Validation of manufacturers’ laryngeal mask airway size selection standard: a large retrospective study
title_full Validation of manufacturers’ laryngeal mask airway size selection standard: a large retrospective study
title_fullStr Validation of manufacturers’ laryngeal mask airway size selection standard: a large retrospective study
title_full_unstemmed Validation of manufacturers’ laryngeal mask airway size selection standard: a large retrospective study
title_short Validation of manufacturers’ laryngeal mask airway size selection standard: a large retrospective study
title_sort validation of manufacturers’ laryngeal mask airway size selection standard: a large retrospective study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7940924/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33708823
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-4838
work_keys_str_mv AT renyaoyao validationofmanufacturerslaryngealmaskairwaysizeselectionstandardalargeretrospectivestudy
AT caocuicui validationofmanufacturerslaryngealmaskairwaysizeselectionstandardalargeretrospectivestudy
AT liangxuan validationofmanufacturerslaryngealmaskairwaysizeselectionstandardalargeretrospectivestudy
AT juzhihai validationofmanufacturerslaryngealmaskairwaysizeselectionstandardalargeretrospectivestudy
AT zhangling validationofmanufacturerslaryngealmaskairwaysizeselectionstandardalargeretrospectivestudy
AT cuixu validationofmanufacturerslaryngealmaskairwaysizeselectionstandardalargeretrospectivestudy
AT wangguyan validationofmanufacturerslaryngealmaskairwaysizeselectionstandardalargeretrospectivestudy