Cricoid-mental distance-based versus weight-based criteria for size selection of classic laryngeal mask airway in adults: a randomized controlled study
- 29 Downloads
The optimal size selection of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) based on body weight is not always applicable. This study was prospectively conducted to evaluate the efficacy of cricoid-mental distance-based method versus weight-based method in optimal size selection of LMA in adults. Seventy-four patients (aged from 18 to 65) undergoing ophthalmic surgery were randomly assigned into cricoid-mental (CM) distance-based group or weight-based group to select appropriate size of LMA. The primary outcome was oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP). Secondary outcomes included overall insertion success rate, number of insertion attempts, time to successful insertion, ease of insertion, score of fiber-optic view, peak inspiratory pressure during mechanical ventilation and postoperative pharyngolaryngeal morbidity. The OLP was significantly higher in CM distance-based group than that in weight-based group (19.38 ± 3.52 vs. 17.50 ± 3.18, P = 0.022). The successful placement at the first attempt in CM distance-based group was dramatically increased as compared with weight-based group (89.2% vs. 62.2%, P = 0.005). The overall success rate of LMA insertion in CM distance-based group was slightly increased in comparison with the weight-based group (100% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.240). There were no significant differences in score of fiber-optic view and postoperative pharyngolaryngeal morbidity between both groups (all P > 0.05). CM distance-based criteria is an alternative choice for optimizing size selection of classic LMA in adults.
KeywordsLaryngeal mask airway Size Adults Cricoid cartilage Mentum
This study was supported by the Clinical Research Project of Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center (3030901010073).
This research received no specific Grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures conducted in our study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional review board and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.
Video flexible laryngoscope (TIC-SD-II, UE Medical Corp., Taizhou, China) (JPEG 12 kb)
- 1.Gordon J, Cooper RM, Parotto M. Supraglottic airway devices: indications, contraindications and management. Minerva Anestesiol. 2018;84:389–97.Google Scholar
- 2.Cook TM, Woodall N, Harper J, Benger J. Major complications of airway management in the UK: results of the Fourth National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Difficult Airway Society. Part 2: intensive care and emergency departments. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106:632–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.The LMA supreme instruction manual. Maidenhead: Intravent Orthofix Ltd; 2007.Google Scholar
- 12.Brimacombe J, Berry A. A proposed fiber-optic scoring system to standardize the assessment of laryngeal mask airway position. Anesth Analg. 1993;76:457.Google Scholar
- 19.Cattano D, Zundert TV, Wojtzack J, Cai C, Callender R, Marjiya SE, Hagberg C. A new method to test concordance between extraglottic airway device dimensions and patient anatomy. Anesthesiology. 2014; A3148.Google Scholar
- 21.Van Zundert TC, Hagberg CA, Cattano D. Inconsistent size nomenclature in extraglottic airway devices. Minerva Anestesiol. 2014;80:692–700.Google Scholar