Users Online: 980 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size  
Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions | Subscribe | Contacts | Login 
 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 28  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 481-485

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


Department of Anesthesiology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal University, Manipal, India

Correspondence Address:
Handattu M Krishna
Department of Anesthesiology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal 576104, Manipal
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0970-9185.101923

Rights and Permissions

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.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1860    
    Printed90    
    Emailed2    
    PDF Downloaded339    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 7    

Recommend this journal