TY - JOUR
T1 - Laryngeal mask airway, so many limitations?
AU - De Cosmo, Germano
AU - Levantesi, Laura
PY - 2018
Y1 - 2018
N2 - We read with great interest the article published by
Rossi et al., entitled “Safety aspects of desflurane anesthesia
and laryngeal mask airway.”1 We would like to
comment on the patient-related factors limiting laryngeal
mask airway (LMA) usage.
LMA is usually used in children under 15 years of
age and is proven to be safe and effective. Actually,
there is a growing interest in its use in association with
desflurane.
Despite desflurane is less commonly used in this
range of population, recent studies reported a relative
safe use of this halogenated also in children whose airways
were supported with laryngeal mask. For example,
Lerman et al. report a frequency of airway events
with desflurane similar to those with isoflurane after
LMA removal with an awake patient.2 Furthermore, the
difference in events removing LMA in awake patients
or deep anesthesia is similar in desflurane and sevoflurane
use.3
Lastly, in our experience, the safe LMA profile together
with desflurane pharmacokinetic, permits to
perform anesthesia in young patients undergoing orthopedic
surgery also in association with loco-regional analgesia.
Second-generation supraglottic airway devices
have contributed to the increase in LMA use, therefore
these show that obesity is not a factor limiting its use. A
Cochrane Review published in 2013 reported a failure
positioning LMA rate of 3% to 5% in obese patients
but also a good oxygenation with this device.4 According
to 2011 NAP4, the limitation regarding LMA use
in obese patients includes patients whose surgery was
performed in the lithotomy position and/or head down
position.5 In addition, in a group of “cervical disorder”
like neck flexing difficulty, we suppose that, with caution
and surgery related possibilities, LMA can prevent
difficulties during intubation and also results as ventilation
device bridging to the orotracheal intubation when
it is mandatory.
In conclusion, we want to congratulate the authors
for a clear and well written paper. However, in our opinion,
LMA could provide more possibilities.
G
AB - We read with great interest the article published by
Rossi et al., entitled “Safety aspects of desflurane anesthesia
and laryngeal mask airway.”1 We would like to
comment on the patient-related factors limiting laryngeal
mask airway (LMA) usage.
LMA is usually used in children under 15 years of
age and is proven to be safe and effective. Actually,
there is a growing interest in its use in association with
desflurane.
Despite desflurane is less commonly used in this
range of population, recent studies reported a relative
safe use of this halogenated also in children whose airways
were supported with laryngeal mask. For example,
Lerman et al. report a frequency of airway events
with desflurane similar to those with isoflurane after
LMA removal with an awake patient.2 Furthermore, the
difference in events removing LMA in awake patients
or deep anesthesia is similar in desflurane and sevoflurane
use.3
Lastly, in our experience, the safe LMA profile together
with desflurane pharmacokinetic, permits to
perform anesthesia in young patients undergoing orthopedic
surgery also in association with loco-regional analgesia.
Second-generation supraglottic airway devices
have contributed to the increase in LMA use, therefore
these show that obesity is not a factor limiting its use. A
Cochrane Review published in 2013 reported a failure
positioning LMA rate of 3% to 5% in obese patients
but also a good oxygenation with this device.4 According
to 2011 NAP4, the limitation regarding LMA use
in obese patients includes patients whose surgery was
performed in the lithotomy position and/or head down
position.5 In addition, in a group of “cervical disorder”
like neck flexing difficulty, we suppose that, with caution
and surgery related possibilities, LMA can prevent
difficulties during intubation and also results as ventilation
device bridging to the orotracheal intubation when
it is mandatory.
In conclusion, we want to congratulate the authors
for a clear and well written paper. However, in our opinion,
LMA could provide more possibilities.
G
KW - Laryngeal mask
KW - Laryngeal mask
UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10807/129332
U2 - 10.23736/S0375-9393.18.12807-0
DO - 10.23736/S0375-9393.18.12807-0
M3 - Article
SN - 0375-9393
VL - 84
SP - 1323
EP - 1324
JO - Minerva Anestesiologica
JF - Minerva Anestesiologica
ER -