Anesthesia: Essays and Researches  Login  | Users Online: 501 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Home | About us | Editorial board | Ahead of print | Search | Current Issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions | Copyright form | Subscribe | Advertise | Contacts

 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Ahead of print publication  

Ease and safety of securing airway by railroading proseal laryngeal mask airway over bougie versus traditional digital insertion technique


 Department of Anaesthesiology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala, India

Date of Submission22-Jul-2021
Date of Acceptance09-Aug-2021
Date of Web Publication07-Nov-2021

Correspondence Address:
Sunil Rajan,
Department of Anaesthesiology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Kochi, Kerala
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/aer.aer_99_21

   Abstract 

Background: ProSeal insertion is usually more time-consuming with lower first-attempt success. Aim of the Study: We aimed to compare the incidence of successful placement of ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) in the first attempt by railroading it over soft gum-elastic bougie introduced into esophagus versus traditional digital insertion technique. Time taken and ease of securing airway, associated hemodynamic responses, and trauma were also assessed. Settings and Design: This was a prospective randomized study conducted in a tertiary care institute. Subjects and Methods: Forty patients were recruited into two groups. Following induction in Group P, PLMA was introduced using digital technique, whereas in Group B, a soft gum-elastic bougie was introduced into esophagus and then PLMA was railroaded over the bougie. Correct placement was confirmed with end-tidal carbon dioxide waveform. Statistical Tests Used: Fisher's exact test and independent samples t-test were used for statistical analysis. Results: Successful first-attempt insertion was significantly higher in Group B compared to Group P (100% vs. 70%). Percentage of easy insertion was also significantly higher in Group B (95% vs. 65%). Time taken to insert ProSeal was significantly shorter in Group B (30.8 ± 7.8 vs. 59.5 ± 44.6 s). No patient in Group B had blood-stained secretion versus 70% in Group P. Mean arterial pressures at and after ProSeal insertion were significantly higher in Group P. However, heart rate remained comparable in both the groups. Conclusion: Bougie-guided ProSeal insertions had significantly higher first-attempt insertion success rates and were significantly faster and less traumatic with blunted blood pressure response compared to traditional digital insertion technique.

Keywords: Bougie, insertion, laryngeal mask airway, railroading



How to cite this URL:
Tosh P, Rajan S, Narayani N, Kumar L. Ease and safety of securing airway by railroading proseal laryngeal mask airway over bougie versus traditional digital insertion technique. Anesth Essays Res [Epub ahead of print] [cited 2021 Dec 3]. Available from: https://www.aeronline.org/preprintarticle.asp?id=329920


   Introduction Top


Supraglottic airway devices (SADs) were introduced into clinical practice to provide a patent airway for ventilation under anesthesia or during resuscitation. The disadvantages of the first-generation devices were mostly rectified in the subsequent generations, but ease of insertion had come down for some newer SADs, especially ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (PLMA). A gastric drainage channel is incorporated lateral to main airway tube in PLMA to aid gastric drainage. A gastric tube can be introduced through this channel to stomach to aspirate contents and can be used to detect the malposition of PLMA.[1] ProSeal is usually inserted blindly after induction of anesthesia and is more time-consuming compared to intubation.[2] Moreover, the frequency of successful PLMA placement in the first attempt is generally lower.[3] Compared to the two conventional PLMA insertion techniques, it has been suggested that bougie preloaded PLMA placement could be easier, quicker, and relatively atraumatic with a higher rate of correct placement as compared to conventional insertion techniques.[4]

Our primary objective was to compare the incidence of successful placement of PLMA in the first attempt by railroading it over soft gum-elastic bougie introduced into esophagus versus traditional digital insertion technique. The secondary objectives included assessment of ease of securing airway, time taken for it, and the hemodynamic responses during the procedure. Evidence of trauma was also assessed by the presence of blood-stained secretions or blood on the device on removal at the end of the surgery. Proper placement of PLMA following bougie-guided technique was also assessed using a flexible bronchoscope.


   Subjects and Methods Top


The present study was designed as a prospective, randomized trial. Institutional Ethical Committee clearance (IEC-AIMS-2019-ANES-123 dated July 25, 2019) and written informed consent for participation in the study and the use of the data for research and educational purposes were obtained from patients prior to recruitment. The study was registered in the Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI/2019/08/020727). Forty surgical patients aged 18–60 years, with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA PS) 1–3 and Mallampati score 1–2, were included in the study. Patients undergoing surgeries on breast and upper limb requiring general anesthesia using ProSeal were included. Those with obesity, hiatus hernia, pregnancy, full stomach, diabetics, and restricted mouth opening and patients for emergency surgeries were excluded. The procedures followed the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki.

As literature search did not yield any similar published data, we initiated the study as a pilot study in twenty patients with ten in each group. Taking successful insertion of ProSeal at the first attempt as a primary objective, it was found that a group of patients in whom bougie was used for insertion of ProSeal had higher success rate compared to insertion without bougie (100% vs. 60%). From this result, with 95% confidence interval and 90% power, minimum sample size was calculated as 19 per group and hence we recruited forty patients into the study.

Randomization was done with computer-generated random number sequence, and patients were recruited equally to either Group B or Group P. Allocation to groups was not disclosed to investigators as sequentially numbered opaque-sealed envelopes were used for the same. Preoperatively, 6-h fasting for solid foods and 2 h for clear fluids were ensured for all patients. The anesthesia protocol was same for all the study subjects.

In the operation theater, a large-bore intravenous access was obtained and patients were started on Ringer's lactate at the dose of 10 mL.kg−1 body weight. Before induction of general anesthesia, pulse oximeter, noninvasive blood pressure monitor, and electrocardiogram were attached. All patients received glycopyrrolate 0.2 mg, midazolam 2 mg, and fentanyl 2 μg.kg−1 body weight intravenously. Propofol was used for induction at 1.5–2 mg.kg−1 body weight till patient stopped responding to verbal commands. Following induction, when it was possible to open the mouth easily with a relaxed lower jaw, insertion of the airway device was attempted.

In Group P, PLMA was introduced using digital technique. After application of a lignocaine jelly on the posterior and lateral sides of deflated ProSeal, it was held like a pen and introduced into oral cavity. The PLMA was then advanced along the palatal curve using the index finger into the hypopharynx until there was a definite resistance. In Group B, a soft gum-elastic bougie, approximately 30 cm from upper incisors, was introduced into esophagus following a gentle laryngoscopy [Figure 1]a. The bougie was prevented from slipping back by firmly holding it while removing the laryngoscope. The proximal end of the bougie was then introduced into distal opening of the ProSeal drain tube [Figure 1]b which was taken out through the proximal opening. With one hand, the proximal end of the bougie was held and then ProSeal was railroaded over the bougie [Figure 1]c.
Figure 1: (a) Gum-elastic bougie introduced into esophagus. (b) ProSeal being loaded onto the bougie. (c) ProSeal being railroaded over bougie

Click here to view


Correct placement was confirmed with chest expansion during positive pressure ventilation and appearance of end-tidal carbon dioxide waveform and by auscultation. If there was difficulty in opening, the mouth as jaw was not relaxed, or if there was any patient movement during device insertion, the depth of anesthesia was increased with an additional bolus of propofol 0.5 mg.kg−1 intravenously.

The time taken for successful device insertion was calculated from the introduction of ProSeal into oral cavity in Group P and introduction of laryngoscope in Group B to appearance of square wave form in capnograph in the monitor. This was recorded by an anesthesia technician using a stopwatch who was not actively taking part in the anesthesia procedure. In the absence of these confirmatory signs, ProSeal was taken out to be reintroduced. Maximum three attempts were allowed for proper placement. We intubated patients in whom we could not place ProSeal satisfactorily. Such patients were excluded from the study.

Placement of ProSeal over laryngeal inlet was assessed using a flexible bronchoscope, and the fiber-optic view was graded and scored as described in [Table 1].[5] Ease of securing airway by both techniques, number of attempts taken for correct placement, time taken for it, and the hemodynamic responses during the procedure were assessed. Ease of insertion was evaluated by the anesthetist who performed the procedure and was graded as easy/moderate difficulty/hard/impossible. Trauma during securing airway as evidenced by the presence of blood-stained secretions or blood on ProSeal while removing was also looked for. The heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were recorded before induction, after induction, immediately after securing airway, and 1, 3, and 5 min later also. We did not use any relaxant intraoperatively, and the patients were kept breathing spontaneously. At the end of the surgery, PLMA was removed when patients were still deep after placing a nasopharyngeal airway.
Table 1: Fiber-optic assessment of anatomical position of the ProSeal against the glottic opening

Click here to view


Statistical analysis

The categorical variables of both the groups were analyzed using Fisher's exact test. Comparison of hemodynamic and demographic variables was performed with independent samples t-test. SPSS version 20.0 for Windows (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA) was used for statistical analysis.


   Results Top


The data of 40 patients were analysed [Figure 2]. Age, weight, gender, and ASA PS of patients in both the groups were comparable in both the groups [Table 2]. Successful first-attempt insertion was significantly higher in Group B compared to Group P (100% vs. 70%, P = 0.02) [Table 3]. Percentage of easy insertion was also significantly higher in Group B (95% vs. 65%, P = 0.044) [Table 3]. Time taken to insert ProSeal was significantly shorter in Group B compared to Group P (30.8 ± 7.8 vs. 59.5 ± 44.6 s, P = 0.01) [Table 3]. Incidence of desaturation to <95% was comparable in both the groups [Table 3]. Ninety percent of patients in Group B had functional observational battery assessment score of Grade 1–2, while it was 35% in Group P. This difference was statistically significant (P = 0.001). No patient in Group B had blood-stained secretions on device. However, significantly higher number of patients (30%) had blood-stained secretions in Group P (P = 0.02) [Table 3]. No patient in both the groups required intubation due to failed device insertion.
Figure 2: Consort flow diagram

Click here to view
Table 2: Comparison of demographics and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status

Click here to view
Table 3: Comparison of ease and number of attempts at insertion, FOB grade, presence of blood staining, and incidence of saturation <95%

Click here to view


MAP at baseline and after induction were comparable in both groups. However, MAP at intubation and 1 min, 3 min, and 5 min after intubation were significantly higher in Group P compared to Group B (P < 0.05). HR and saturation levels at all time points were comparable in both the groups [Table 4].
Table 4: Comparison of heart rate and mean arterial pressures

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


We observed that bougie-guided ProSeal insertions were faster, and less traumatic, with higher first-attempt insertion rates as compared to traditional digital insertion technique. Bougie-guided insertions were also associated with blunted blood pressure response as well. Both techniques resulted in comparable HR responses. Fiber-optic bronchoscopic assessment of proper placement revealed that significantly more number of patients in Group B had favorable view indicating proper placement of ProSeal over laryngeal inlet.

The three common malpositions described with the use of ProSeal are (a) PLMA not inserted deep enough with the distal tip remaining in the medial pharynx, (b) tip of PLMA facing glottis which obstructs the airway with air leak through drainage tube, and (c) folding of the tip of the PLMA cuff posteriorly which obstructs the drainage tube.[6],[7] The third malposition usually does not affect the seal or ventilation, but chances of gastric insufflation, regurgitation, and aspiration increase markedly. If PLMA drainage tube is preloaded with a lubricated gastric tube with its end at the distal tip of PLMA, the tip of the cuff getting folded posteriorly can be prevented. With this technique, the gastric tube can be successfully passed into the esophagus easily.[8]

Howath et al. had demonstrated that gum-elastic bougie-guided insertion was also equally effective.[9] In this technique, a lubricated gum-elastic bougie was passed through the ProSeal LMA drainage tube with the straight end of the bougie protruding 30 cm beyond the tip of ProSeal, which was inserted into the esophagus under direct laryngoscopic vision. Then, the laryngoscope was removed and ProSeal was inserted further down over the gum-elastic bougie. This technique was found to have a high success rate with low incidence of trauma. Other two studies had also shown that bougie-guided insertion of ProSeal LMA had higher success rate with less trauma as compared to the use of insertion tool or digital technique.[10],[11] Although the use of introducer tool had made ProSeal insertions easier, it was shown that correct placement at the first attempt was higher with the bougie-guided technique (100%) than digital (88%) or with the use of introducer tool (84%, P < 0.001).[12] The use of metal introducer could be associated with a higher risk of soft-tissue trauma as well.

Most of the previous studies have used either bougie preloaded ProSeal or bougie was introduced intro esophagus following laryngoscopy. In our study, we did not prime the ProSeal with gum-elastic bougie. We did a gentle laryngoscopy to just lift the tongue away from the posterior pharynx, and the bougie was introduced blindly into the esophagus. Then, after removing the laryngoscope, PLMA was railroaded. By reducing time of scopy and force required to lift the structures to visualize esophagus, we intended to reduce the hemodynamic stress response to laryngoscopy. Although this procedure was slightly time-consuming over the use of a primed PLMA, we did not find any significant difference in time taken to secure airway. Although there was a chance of bougie entering the trachea instead of esophagus, we did not encounter any such case as it would have resulted in gas leak through the gastric drain tube on positive pressure ventilation.

In our study, no muscle relaxant was used for insertion of the device as the plan of anesthesia in these cases was general anesthesia with spontaneous ventilation. We did not observe any patient movement during laryngoscopy probably because we avoided a proper laryngoscopy as it was only used to lift the tongue and/or the patients were deep with dose of propofol given. However, few cases in Group P, who required multiple attempts at insertion of ProSeal, needed additional propofol bolus due to patient movement during the repeated attempts.

In pediatric patients with simulated difficult laryngoscopy, PLMA insertion with combined introducer tool and stylet technique had higher success rate than digital or introducer tool technique alone. In this study, the combined technique involved attaching introducer tool to the PLMA along with a flexible stylet inserted through the drain tube of the ProSeal.[13] Rusch Flexi-Slip stylet may be considered as an alternative in patients encountered with difficulty in proper placement of PLMA.[14]

The major limitation of our study was that even though all device insertions were performed by a single anesthetist with more than 5-year experience, which eliminated subjective variations due to varying levels of expertise, the first-time success rate with digital technique was found to be lower compared to previous studies possibly due to varying patient factors, which could explain the higher incidence of trauma and lower fiber-optic view score seen with digital technique. Another limitation of the study was that only the patients were blinded. The depth of anesthesia at which ProSeal insertion was attempted was assessed only by clinical means like an unresponsive patient with a relaxed jaw. The use of advanced techniques like bispectral index monitoring would have ensured uniform depth of anesthesia in all subjects. Fiber-optic assessment of LMA positioning, as with ProSeal placement, could have been more informative.


   Conclusion Top


Bougie-guided ProSeal insertions had significantly higher first-attempt insertion success rate and were significantly faster and less traumatic with blunted blood pressure response compared to traditional digital insertion technique.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Kanthed P, Sharma B, Sood J, Kumra VP. Comparison of LMA-ProSealTM with LMA ClassicTM in anaesthetised paralysed children. Indian J Anaesth 2008;52:44-8.  Back to cited text no. 1
  [Full text]  
2.
Patodi V, Singh M, Sethi KS, Depal VN, Jain N, Kumar V. A comparative study between ProSeal laryngeal mask airway and endotracheal tube for ease of insertion and haemodynamic changes in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anaesthesia. Int J Res Med Sci 2016;4:5334-40.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Cook TM, Lee G, Nolan JP. The proseal™laryngeal mask airway: A review of the literature. Can J Anesth 2005;52:739.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Taneja S, Agarwal M, Dali JS, Agrawal G. Ease of proseal laryngeal mask airway insertion and its fibreoptic view after placement using gum elastic bougie: A comparison with conventional techniques. Anaesth Intensive Care 2009;37:435-40.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Zundert TV, Gatt S. The Baska Mask® – A new concept in Self-sealing membrane cuff extraglottic airway devices, using a sump and two gastric drains: A critical evaluation. J Obstet Anaesth Crit Care 2012;2:23-30.  Back to cited text no. 5
  [Full text]  
6.
Brain AI, Verghese C, Strube PJ. The LMA 'ProSeal' – A laryngeal mask with an oesophageal vent. Br J Anaesth 2000;84:650-4.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Brimacombe J, Keller C, Berry A. Gastric insufflation with the ProSeal laryngeal mask. Anesth Analg 2001;92:1614-5.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Martínez-Pons V, Madrid V. Ease placement of LMA ProSeal with a gastric tube inserted. Anesth Analg 2004;98:1816-7.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Howath A, Brimacombe J, Keller C. Gum-elastic bougie-guided insertion of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: A new technique. Anaesth Intensive Care 2002;30:624-7.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Brimacombe J, Keller C. Gum elastic bougie-guided insertion of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway. Anaesth Intensive Care 2004;32:681-4.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Eschertzhuber S, Brimacombe J, Hohlrieder M, Stadlbauer KH, Keller C. Gum elastic bougie-guided insertion of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway is superior to the digital and introducer tool techniques in patients with simulated difficult laryngoscopy using a rigid neck collar. Anesth Analg 2008;107:1253-6.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Brimacombe J, Keller C, Judd DV. Gum elastic bougie-guided insertion of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway is superior to the digital and introducer tool techniques. Anesthesiology 2004;100:25-9.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Das B, Mitra S, Samanta A, Samal RK. A comparative study of three methods of ProSeal laryngeal mask airway insertion in children with simulated difficult laryngoscopy using a rigid neck collar. Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwan 2014;52:110-3.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Chen HS, Liu PH, Chung KC, Hung KC. Use of the Rusch Flexi-Slip stylet for patients with difficult insertion of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway. Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwan 2010;48:37-40.  Back to cited text no. 14
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

 
Top
 
 
  Search
 
     Search Pubmed for
 
    -  Tosh P
    -  Rajan S
    -  Narayani N
    -  Kumar L
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
   Subjects and Methods
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed99    
    PDF Downloaded7    

Recommend this journal