Home > Journals > Minerva Anestesiologica > Past Issues > Articles online first > Minerva Anestesiologica 2021 Feb 16

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as
Share

 

 

Minerva Anestesiologica 2021 Feb 16

DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.20.15001-6

Copyright © 2020 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Risk factors for difficult Laryngeal Mask Airway LMA-Supreme™ (LMAS) placement in adults: a multicentric prospective observational study in an Italian population

Alessandro DI FILIPPO 1, 2, Chiara ADEMBRI 1, 2 , Laura PAPARELLA 2, Clelia ESPOSITO 3, Lorenzo TOFANI 4, Ylenia PEREZ 1, Ida DI GIACINTO 5, Massimo MICAGLIO 2, Massimiliano SORBELLO 6, the Airway Management Study Group of SIAARTI

1 Section of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy; 2 Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy; 3 Department of Anaesthesia, Resuscitation and Postoperative Intensive Care, Ospedali dei Colli, Naples, Italy; 4 Department of Neurosciences, Psychology, Drug Research and Child Health, University of Florence, Florence, Italy; 5 Department of Organ Failure and Transplantation, St.Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, Bologna, Italy; 6 Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, AOU Policlinico Vittorio Emanuele San Marco, Catania, Italy



BACKGROUND: Supraglottic airway Devices (SADs) are precious tools for airway management in both routine and rescue situations; few studies have analysed the risk factors for their difficult insertion.
METHODS: The aim of this study was to identify the risk factors for difficult insertion for a specific SAD, the Laryngeal Mask Airway LMA-Supreme™ (LMAS). This was a prospective multicentric observational study on a cohort of Italian adult patients receiving general anaesthesia for elective surgery. The possible causes of difficulty in LMAS placement (difficulty in insertion or unsatisfactory ventilation) were identified based on literature and on the opinion of international airway management experts. A dedicated datasheet was prepared to collect patients’ data, including anthropometric parameters and parameters for the prediction of difficult airway management, as well as technical choices for the use of LMAS. Data were analysed to discover the risk factors for difficult LMAS placement and the association between each risk factor and the proportion of incorrect positioning was evaluated through the relative risk and its confidence interval.
RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-two patients were enrolled; seventy required two or more attempts to insert the LMAS; nine required a change of strategy. At multivariate analysis, the following factors were significantly associated with difficult LMAS placement: Mallampati III - IV with either phonation or not; inter-incisor distance < 3 cm; reduced neck mobility; no administration of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs).
CONCLUSIONS: The alignment of the laryngeal and pharyngeal axes seems to facilitate the procedure, together with NMBA administration; on the contrary, Mallampati grade III-IV are associated with difficult LMAS placement.


KEY WORDS: Airway Management; Laryngeal Mask Airway; Device Failure; Risk Factors

top of page