The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Med.
Sec. Intensive Care Medicine and Anesthesiology
Volume 11 - 2024 |
doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1469225
How head position affects laryngeal vision with a video laryngeal mask airway?
Provisionally accepted- 1 Service of Anaesthesiology, Reanimation and Pain Therapy, University General Hospital of Cartagena-Murcia, Spain, Cartagena, Spain
- 2 Univsity General Hospital of Cartagena, Cartagena, Spain
- 3 Medical University of Lodz, Łódź, Poland
The laryngeal mask airway Vision Mask (LMA VM) is a supraglottic airway device with a vision guidance system. The ideal head and neck position for direct laryngoscopy is known, but the ideal position for placing a LMA is not. The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare the optimal position for placement of a video laryngeal mask airway.Methods: This was a prospective, observational, transversal and analytical study of 72 consecutive patients. In the same patient, laryngeal vision was first assessed with the head and neck in the sniffing position and then with the head in the neutral position.Procedures were performed by the same investigator. Assessment of the laryngeal view was performed using two classifications: Cormack-Lehane classification and Brimacombe classification. Device placement was considered adequate when the Cormack-Lehane rating was scored from 1 to 2 and the Brimacombe rating was from 2 to 4.This study was done on 72 patients. In the assessment of the glottis using the Cormack Lehane classification for fiberoptic view, laryngeal visibility was adequate in 64 (88.89%) patients in the neutral position and in 65 (90,28%) patients in the sniffing position (p>0,05). In the fiberoptic view of the glottis, evaluated using the Brimacombe classification, laryngeal visibility was adequate in 68 (93%) patients in the neutral position and in 69 (95%) patients in the sniffing position, (p>0,05). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of success between the sniffing position (70 patients, 97.22% success rate) and the neutral position (67 patients, 93.06% success rate) during the first insertion attempt. Two patients required a second attempt in the sniffing position, while five patients required a second attempt in the neutral position.An adequate sniffing position did not result in a better glottic view than the neutral position. Additional maneuvers were equal in both positions. The head-neck position does not influence on the placement of a third generation SAD.
Keywords: Supraglottic airway device, head position, Glottis view, videolaryngeal mask, Vision Mask
Received: 23 Jul 2024; Accepted: 25 Nov 2024.
Copyright: © 2024 Castillo-Monzón, Marroquín-Valz, Gaszynski, Cayuela, Orozco and Ratajczyk. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Tomasz Gaszynski, Medical University of Lodz, Łódź, Poland
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.