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

Handattu M. Krishna, Shyamsunder Kamath, Laxmi Shenoy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)481-485
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology
Volume28
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 10-2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Laryngeal Masks
Fingers
Mouth
Pharyngitis
Tongue
Anesthetics
Bronchoscopes
Incidence

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pharmacology (medical)
  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
  • Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics(all)

Cite this

@article{f16938bbae474e4e9a5d9c8545e0dd9f,
title = "Insertion of LMA Classic™ with and without digital intraoral manipulation in anesthetized unparalyzed patients",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Krishna, {Handattu M.} and Shyamsunder Kamath and Laxmi Shenoy",
year = "2012",
month = "10",
doi = "10.4103/0970-9185.101923",
language = "English",
volume = "28",
pages = "481--485",
journal = "Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology",
issn = "0970-9185",
publisher = "Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology",
number = "4",

}

Insertion of LMA Classic™ with and without digital intraoral manipulation in anesthetized unparalyzed patients. / Krishna, Handattu M.; Kamath, Shyamsunder; Shenoy, Laxmi.

In: Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology, Vol. 28, No. 4, 10.2012, p. 481-485.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Insertion of LMA Classic™ with and without digital intraoral manipulation in anesthetized unparalyzed patients

AU - Krishna, Handattu M.

AU - Kamath, Shyamsunder

AU - Shenoy, Laxmi

PY - 2012/10

Y1 - 2012/10

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84869812403&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84869812403&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4103/0970-9185.101923

DO - 10.4103/0970-9185.101923

M3 - Article

VL - 28

SP - 481

EP - 485

JO - Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology

JF - Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology

SN - 0970-9185

IS - 4

ER -