Comparing the insertion and ventilation of laryngeal mask airway according to the patient’s head position and muscle relaxation use

References

1. ↵
   1. Jannu A,
   2. Shekar A,
   3. Balakrishna R,
   4. Sudarshan H,
   5. Veena GC,
   6. Bhuvaneshwari S

   (2017) Advantages, Disadvantages, Indications, Contraindications and Surgical Technique of Laryngeal Airway Mask. Arch Craniofac Surg 18:223–229.

   OpenUrl
2. ↵
   1. Eger Ii EI,
   2. Saidman LJ,
   3. Westhorpe RN

   1. Hagberg CA,
   2. Ghouse AA,
   3. Iannucci DG

   (2014) in The wondrous story of anesthesia, The Development of techniques for airway management, eds Eger Ii EI, Saidman LJ, Westhorpe RN (Springer New York, New York (NY)), pp 723–44.
3. 1. Singh A,
   2. Bhalotra AR,
   3. Anand R

   (2018) A comparative evaluation of ProSeal laryngeal mask airway, i-gel and supreme laryngeal mask airway in adult patients undergoing elective surgery: A randomised trial. Indian J Anaesth 62:858–864.

   OpenUrl
4. ↵
   1. Tulgar S,
   2. Boga I,
   3. Cakiroglu B,
   4. Thomas DT

   (2017) Short-lasting pediatric laparoscopic surgery:Are muscle relaxants necessary?Endotracheal intubation vs. laryngeal mask airway. J Pediatr Surg 52:1705–1710.

   OpenUrl
5. ↵
   1. Banerjee G,
   2. Jain D,
   3. Bala I,
   4. Gandhi K,
   5. Samujh R

   (2018) Comparison of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway with the i-gel™in the different head-and-neck positions in anaesthetised paralysed children: A randomised controlled trial. Indian J Anaesth 62:103–108.

   OpenUrl
6. 1. Mishra SK,
   2. Nawaz M,
   3. Satyapraksh MVS,
   4. Parida S,
   5. Bidkar PU,
   6. Hemavathy B,
   7. et al.

   (2015) Influence of head and neck position on oropharyngeal leak pressure and cuff position with the proseal laryngeal mask airway and the i-gel: a randomized clinical trial. Anesthesiol Res Pract 2015, 705869.
7. ↵
   1. Somri M,
   2. Vaida S,
   3. Garcia Fornari G,
   4. Mendoza GR,
   5. Charco-Mora P,
   6. Hawash N,
   7. et al.

   (2016) A randomized prospective controlled trial comparing the laryngeal tube suction disposable and the supreme laryngeal mask airway:the influence of head and neck position on oropharyngeal seal pressure. BMC anesthesiology 16:87.

   OpenUrl
8. ↵
   1. Jun JH,
   2. Baik HJ,
   3. Kim JH,
   4. Kim YJ,
   5. Chang RN

   (2011) Comparison of the ease of laryngeal mask airway ProSeal placementand the fiberoptic scoring according to the head position and the presence of a difficult airway. Korean J Anesthesiol 60:244–249.

   OpenUrlPubMed
9. ↵
   1. Aleksandrowicz D,
   2. Gaszynski T

   (2018) Intubation through 2 supraglottic airway device in cervical spine immobilization:a randomized trial of residents'use of the intubating laryngeal mask airway and the intubating laryngeal tube in manikins. Emergencias 30:186–189.

   OpenUrl
10. ↵
    1. Fujiwara A,
    2. Komasawa N,
    3. Nishihara I,
    4. Miyazaki S,
    5. Tatsumi S,
    6. Nishimura W,
    7. et al.

    (2015) Muscle relaxant effects on placementefficacy of the laryngeal mask ProSeal®in anesthetized patients:a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Anesth 29:580–584.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
11. ↵
    1. Kong M,
    2. Li B,
    3. Tian Y

    (2016) Laryngeal mask airway without muscle relaxant in femoral head replacement in elderly patients. Exp Ther Med 11:65–68.

    OpenUrl
12. ↵
    1. Brimacombe J,
    2. Berry A

    (1993) A proposed fiber-optic scoring system to standardize the assessment of laryngeal mask airway position. Anesth Analg 76:457.

    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
13. ↵
    1. Keller C,
    2. Brimacombe J,
    3. Puhringer F

    (2000) A fibreoptic scoring system to assess the position of laryngeal mask airway devices. Interobserver variability and a comparison between the standard, flexible and intubating laryngeal mask airways. Anasthesiologie, Intensivmedizin, Notfallmedizin, Schmerztherapie. AINS 35:692–694.

    OpenUrl
14. ↵
    1. Kulnig J,
    2. Fureder L,
    3. Harrison N,
    4. Frass M,
    5. Robak O

    (2018) Performance and skill retention of five supraglottic airway devices for the pediatric difficult airway in a manikin. Eur J Pediatr 177:871–878.

    OpenUrl
15. ↵
    1. Kim H,
    2. Chang JE,
    3. Min SW,
    4. Lee JM,
    5. Ji S,
    6. Hwang JY

    (2016) A comparison of direct laryngoscopic views in different head and neck positions in edentulous patients. Am J Emerg Med 34:1855–1858.

    OpenUrl
16. 1. Akhtar M,
    2. Ali Z,
    3. Hassan N,
    4. Mehdi S,
    5. Wani G,
    6. Mir A

    (2017) A randomized study comparing the sniffing position with simple head extension for glottis visualization and difficulty in intubation during direct laryngoscopy. Anesth Essays Res 11:762–766.

    OpenUrl
17. ↵
    1. Akihisa Y,
    2. Hoshijima H,
    3. Maruyama K,
    4. Koyama Y,
    5. Andoh T

    (2015) Effects of sniffing position for tracheal intubation:a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Emerg Med 33:1606–16011.

    OpenUrl
18. ↵
    1. Kuna ST

    (2000) Respiratory-related activation and mechanical effects of the pharyngeal constrictor muscles. Respir Physiol 119:155–161.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
19. ↵
    1. Grady DM,
    2. McHardy F,
    3. Wong J,
    4. Jin F,
    5. Tong D,
    6. Chung F

    (2001) Pharyngolaryngeal morbidity with the laryngeal mask airway in spontaneously breathing patients:does size matter?Anesthesiology, 94:760–766.
20. ↵
    1. Porhomayon J,
    2. Farid SD,
    3. El-Solh AA,
    4. Adlparvar G,
    5. Nader ND

    (2015) The impact of endotracheal tube vs. Laryngeal Mask Airway on the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Middle East J Anaesthesiol 23:9–16.

    OpenUrl
21. ↵
    1. Kim MS,
    2. Lee JS,
    3. Nam SB,
    4. Kang HJ,
    5. Kim JE

    (2015) Randomized Comparison of Actual and Ideal Body Weight for Size Selection of the Laryngeal Mask Airway Classic in Overweight Patients. J Korean Med Sci 30:1197–1202.

    OpenUrl