Commentary - Journal of Clinical Respiratory Medicine (2022) Volume 6, Issue 3

A comparison of two installation methodologies for the laryngeal mask airway.

Department of Anaesthesiology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China

*Corresponding Author:

Shuchang Sile
Department of Anaesthesiology
Shanghai Chest Hospital
Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China
E-mail: shuchangsile@163.com

Received: 02-Jun-2022, Manuscript No. AAJCRM-22-66130; Editor assigned: 03-Jun-2022, Pre QC No. AAJCRM-22-66130(PQ); Reviewed: 17-Jun-2022, QC No. AAJCRM-22-66130; Revised: 21-Jun-2022, Manuscript No. AAJCRM-22-66130(R); Published: 25-Jun-2022, DOI: 10.35841/aajcrm-6.3.111

Citation: Sile S. A comparison of two installation methodologies for the laryngeal mask airway. J Clin Resp Med. 2022;6(3):111

Abstract

The goal of the study was to see how easy it was to install the laryngeal mask airway using a fully inflated cuff versus the normal uninflated technique. A total of 200 individuals having anaesthesia with a laryngeal mask airway were randomised to have the mask put in one of two ways. The clinical function of the airway was used to determine whether or not the insertion was successful.

Keywords

Anaesthesia, Rheumatoid arthritis.

Introduction

The number of insertion attempts required to achieve a good airway were noted, as well as whether an alternative approach was required for success [1]. A blind observer noted the presence or absence of blood when the laryngeal mask was removed. Each patient was questioned if they felt a sore throat just before leaving the recovery room. When it came to firsttime success, the insertion technique made no difference [2]. Throughout experienced hands, insertion of the laryngeal mask airway with the cuff completely inflated is just as successful as insertion with the cuff deflated. The expanded approach was linked to a decreased incidence of postoperative sore throat due to less minor pharyngeal mucosal damage. This suggests that the expanded approach would be acceptable to the majority of people who use a laryngeal mask. Professionally, the function of the laryngeal masks was determined using stringent criteria. We needed the ability to easily ventilate the lungs with no major resistance or leak, as measured by chest movement, and no substantial resistance to expiration with rapid reservoir bag refilling. Capnography was employed as well. The airway was assessed as adequate or inadequate, with the latter requiring a second try after assuring enough anaesthetic depth. The ratings were made by the investigator who administered that particular anaesthesia [3].

Laryngeal mask airway for anaesthesia

According to Brimacombe and Berry if the usual approach is followed correctly, the first-time success rate should be 98% in under 20 seconds. If Brimacombe and Berry's conventional technique is as simple and effective as they claim, it should be far more popular than Dingley and Asai discovered. One of them had severe rheumatoid arthritis, and due to a narrowed mouth hole, it was impossible to put the inflated mask. With the cuff inflated, the laryngeal mask would not travel beyond the tongue in the second patient [4]. In the third case, the patient With a size 3 laryngeal mask inserted either with the cuff inflated or deflated, a functioning airway was not feasible, a size 4 mask was then put with the cuff inflated, delivering a good airway on the first attempt. For anaesthesia that does not require endotracheal intubation, the laryngeal mask airway has become highly popular. Many different methods of insertion have been described in addition to the traditional one [5]. If Brimacombe and Berry's conventional technique is as simple and effective as they claim, it should be far with us researcher's biggest important clinical finding concerns pharyngeal trauma. Blood on the laryngeal mask after removal was interpreted as a sign of pharyngeal mucosal damage. The incidence of pharyngeal haemorrhage when using the usual technique versus employing an insertion device was studied. This device was created to keep the laryngeal mask from hitting the mucosa by guiding it around the posterior pharyngeal wall. The most important clinical finding for us as researchers is pharyngeal trauma. After removing the laryngeal mask, blood on the laryngeal mask was regarded as a symptom of pharyngeal mucosal injury. The incidence of pharyngeal bleeding was compared between using the standard procedure and using an insertion device. By directing the laryngeal mask along the posterior pharyngeal wall, this device prevents it from striking the mucosa [6].

Conclusion

An inflatable technique causes epiglottis folding in up to half of the patients. If this is the case in our patients, the findings imply that it does not compromise the airway and is not linked to an increased risk of sore throat. Sore throat and pharyngeal mucosal haemorrhage were significantly reduced when the laryngeal mask airway was inserted with the cuff inflated. We believe this is due to the posterior pharyngeal wall being presented with a softer leading edge.

References

1. Brimacombe J, Berry A. Insertion of the laryngeal mask airway: a prospective study of four techniques. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1993;21(1):89-92.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross ref

2. Dingley J, Asai T. Insertion methods of the laryngeal mask airway: a survey of current practice in Wales. Anaesthesia. 1996;51(6):596-9.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross ref

3. Brimacombe JR, Berry AM. Mallampati grade and laryngeal mask placement. Anesth Analg. 1996;82(5):1112.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross ref

4. Matta BF, Marsh DS, Nevin M. Laryngeal mask airway: a more successful method of insertion. J Clin Anesth. 1995;7(2):132-5.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross ref

5. Maltby JR, Loken RG, Watson NC. The laryngeal mask airway: clinical appraisal in 250 patients. Can J Anaesth. 1990;37(5):509-13.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross ref

6. Dingley J, Whitehead MJ. A comparative study of the incidence of sore throat with the laryngeal mask airwayn. Anaesthesia. 1994;49(3):251-4.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross ref