JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) An erratum has been published Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (8) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Rosenblatt, W. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Rosenblatt, W. H.

---

CRITICAL CARE AND TRAUMA

The Use of the LMA-ProSeal^TM in Airway Resuscitation

Department of Anesthesiology and Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut

Address correspondence and reprint requests to William H. Rosenblatt, MD, Department of Anesthesia and Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, TMP-3, 333 Cedar St., New Haven, CT 06510. Address e-mail to will.rosenblatt{at}yale.edu

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Case Report Discussion References

 

IMPLICATIONS: Although the Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA^TM) has become a standard tool in the airway resuscitation armamentarium, lack of access to the gastrointestinal tract can limit its utility. A new LMA (LMA-ProSeal^TM) overcomes this limitation. In the current case, reducing gastric distension reversed inadequate oxygenation after failed intubation and face mask ventilation.

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Case Report Discussion References

 
The laryngeal mask airways (LMA^TM, LMA-Fastrach^TM, and LMA-Unique^TM) (Laryngeal Mask Company, Henley-on-Thames, UK) are recognized to be vital tools in the management of the failed airway (1–10). A commonly cited failing of these devices is the lack of protection of the larynx and trachea from regurgitated gastric contents, as well as a lack of access to the alimentary tract.

In 2000, the LMA-ProSeal^TM (Laryngeal Mask Company) was introduced into clinical practice. This device incorporates a second lumen, arising from the tip of the laryngeal mask and terminating outside of the patient airway. This lumen, termed the gastric drain, has been demonstrated to effectively vent passively or actively regurgitated esophageal contents (11–13). A gastric tube can also be placed down this lumen to empty the stomach.

We report a case in which a patient whose trachea could not be intubated because of lingular tonsil hyperplasia (14) was resuscitated with a LMA-ProSeal^TM. The drain tube was used to decompress the stomach, which had become distended during mask ventilation, resulting in pulmonary compromise.

	Case Report

Top Abstract Introduction Case Report Discussion References

 
A 50-yr-old woman presented for total abdominal hysterectomy under general anesthesia. She had refused a regional anesthetic. There was no history of previous anesthetics, sleep apnea symptoms, or gastroesophageal reflux disease. Findings on routine airway physical examination, induction of anesthesia, and face mask ventilation were unremarkable. A long-acting, nondepolarizing muscle relaxant was subsequently administered. Once full neuromuscular block was achieved, four attempts at direct laryngoscopy using both Macintosh and Miller blades resulted in grade 3 laryngeal views, and passage of a tracheal tube was unsuccessful. Attempts to visualize the larynx with a fiberoptic bronchoscope (FOB) were also unsuccessful: wet, pale, and edematous tissue was seen and definitive anatomic structures could not be recognized.

A size 3, and subsequently a size 4 LMA-Fastrach^TM was placed, and although the patient could be easily ventilated, attempts at intubation, both blind and with the aid of an FOB, were also unsuccessful (10). The fiberoptic view was as noted above. Between tracheal intubation attempts, the patient was ventilated by face mask. Oxyhemoglobin saturation, which had been 100% (fraction of inspired oxygen of 1.0) during the initial attempts at laryngoscopy, decreased to 85% as the left upper quadrant of the abdomen became distended and mask ventilation became progressively more difficult. A size 4 LMA-ProSeal^TM was prepared, inserted, and inflated as has been described (11). The anesthesia circuit was connected to the airway lumen, and the patient’s lungs were ventilated. Airway pressures of 25–30 cm of H₂O were required to provide adequate ventilation (end-tidal CO₂, modest chest movement), but the oxygen saturation did not improve. A 14F gastric tube was inserted through the gastric drain of the LMA-ProSeal^TM, and with the application of suction, the epigastric distension was reduced and the oxygen saturation returned to 95%. Subsequently, ventilation was adequate with <20 cm H₂O pressure. Examination with the FOB through the airway lumen of the LMA-ProSeal^TM revealed normal laryngeal structures. Ten milligrams of dexamethasone was given IV. The patient was allowed to emerge fully and the LMA-ProSeal^TM was removed. The surgical case was deferred until the patient could be examined by an otolaryngology consultant.

One hour later in the Postanesthetic Care Unit, nasopharyngeal endoscopy revealed hyperplastic and edematous tissue at the base of the tongue.

The patient returned for surgery 2 wk later, and was tracheally intubated without incident, using an FOB before the induction of anesthesia.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Case Report Discussion References

 
The LMA^TM has proved to be a vital tool for the resuscitation of the failed airway. There have been many reported as well as unreported cases of failed tracheal intubation and failure to ventilate by mask in which the airway was "rescued" with a LMA^TM, although neither a controlled trial nor metaanalysis has been published (1). Ovassapian et al. (14) have recently reported that lingular tonsil hyperplasia is a common etiology of unanticipated difficult laryngoscopy.

The underlying characteristic of the LMA^TM that makes it a superior tool in the unanticipated difficult airway armamentarium is that its insertion follows an intrinsic pathway, not requiring tissue displacement and distortion (as with laryngoscopy). It is a blind technique, not hindered by blood, secretions, debris, and base of the tongue/epiglottis edema from previous attempts at laryngoscopy.

The major disadvantage of the LMA-Classic^TM in resuscitation (i.e., in the cannot-intubate situation) is the lack of mechanical protection from regurgitation and aspiration. Despite this, there are less frequent rates of regurgitation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation with a LMA^TM (3.5%) than with the bag-valve mask ventilation (12.4%) (2,7,8,15). Even in the case of regurgitation, pulmonary aspiration is a rare event with the LMA-Classic^TM (12,13). A second disadvantage of the LMA^TM in resuscitation is its relatively low seal pressure of approximately 20 cm H₂O pressure.

The gastric drain of the LMA-ProSeal^TM originates at the distal tip of the mask and emerges from the patient lateral to the airway barrel (Fig. 1) (11). A gastric tube can be inserted into the stomach via this lumen. This design reduces the risk of both gastric inflation (by providing a vent for gas transmitted to the esophagus) and the risk of aspiration of refluxed gastric contents (by providing an outlet) (11–13). The design of the LMA-ProSeal^TM reliably allows positive pressure ventilation up to 30–40 cm H₂O pressure (16).

View larger version (117K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. The bowl of the LMA-ProSealTM. The gastric drain can be seen passing through the bowl of the mask, and exiting at the distal tip.

In this case, attempts to intubate with direct laryngoscopy, the LMA-Fastrach^TM, and an FOB all failed because of hyperplasia at the base of the tongue. It is possible that a size 5 LMA-Fastrach^TM would have been adequate for blind or fiberoptically aided intubation (the epiglottis could be seen distal to the LMA-Fastrach^TM lifting bar), but one was not available at the time of this case.

The current case illustrates a resuscitative advantage of the LMA-ProSeal^TM as compared with other LMA^TM devices (11). The LMA-ProSeal^TM does not serve to "dam" the upper esophagus, but rather provides access to the esophagus and stomach. It was only by virtue of this facility that the patient could be adequately resuscitated. The improved seal pressure of the LMA-ProSeal^TM (up to 40 cm H₂O) (16) also allowed supralaryngeal ventilation of a patient with a transient reduction in airway compliance (caused by gastric distension.)

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Case Report Discussion References

 

1. Parmet JL, Colonna-Romano P, Horrow JC, et al. The Laryngeal Mask Airway reliably provides rescue ventilation in cases of unanticipated difficult tracheal intubation along with difficult mask ventilation. Anesth Analg 1998; 87: 661–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2. Stone BJ, Chantler PJ, Baskett PJF. The incidence of regurgitation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a comparison between the bag valve mask and laryngeal mask airway. Resuscitation 1998; 38: 3–6.[Web of Science][Medline]
3. Morrison AG, O’Donnell NG. Laryngeal mask insertion, cricoid pressure and manual in-line stabilisation. Anaesthesia 1996; 51: 285–6.[Web of Science][Medline]
4. Asai T, Neil J, Stacey M. Ease of placement of the laryngeal mask during manual in-line neck stabilisation. Br J Anaesth 1998; 80: 617–20.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Asai T, Latto P. Role of the laryngeal mask in patients with difficult tracheal intubation and difficult ventilation. In: Latto IP, Vaughan RS, eds. Difficulties in tracheal intubation. London: WB Saunders, 1997: 177–96.
6. Anonymous. The use of the laryngeal mask airway by nurses during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: results of a multicentre trial. Anaesthesia 1994; 49: 3–7.[Web of Science][Medline]
7. Verghese C, Prior-Willeard PFS, Baskett PJ. Immediate management of the airway during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a hospital without a resident anaesthesiologist. Eur J Emerg Med 1994; 1: 123–5.[Medline]
8. Samarkandi AH, Seraj MA, el Dawlatly A, et al. The role of the laryngeal mask airway in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation 1994; 28: 103–6.[Web of Science][Medline]
9. Berry AM, Brimacombe JR, Verghese C. The laryngeal mask airway in emergency medicine, neonatal resuscitation, and intensive care medicine. Int Anesthesiol Clin 1998; 36: 91–109.[Web of Science][Medline]
10. Rosenblatt WH, Murphy M. The intubating laryngeal mask: use of a new ventilating intubating device in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 1999; 33: 234–8.[Web of Science][Medline]
11. Agro F, Brimacombe J, Brain AI, et al. Awake use of a new laryngeal mask prototype in a non-fasted patient requiring urgent peripheral vascular surgery. Resuscitation 1999; 40: 187–9.[Web of Science][Medline]
12. Evans NR, Llewellyn RL, Gardner SV, James MFM. Aspiration prevented by the ProSeal^TM laryngeal mask airway: a case report. Can J Anaesth 2002; 49: 413–6.[Web of Science][Medline]
13. Mark DA. Protection from aspiration with the LMA-ProSeal^TM after vomiting. Can J Anaesth 2003; 50: 78–80.[Web of Science][Medline]
14. Ovassapian A, Glassenberg R, Randel GI, et al. The unexpected difficult airway and lingular tonsil hyperplasia: a case series and review of the literature. Anesthesiology 2002; 97: 124–32.[Web of Science][Medline]
15. Leach A, Alexander CA, Stone B. The laryngeal mask in cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a district general hospital: a preliminary communication. Resuscitation 1993; 25: 245–8.[Web of Science][Medline]
16. Maltby JR, Beriault MT, Watson NC, et al. The LMA-ProSeal^TM is an effective alternative to tracheal intubation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Can J Anaesth 2002; 49: 857–62.[Web of Science][Medline]
17. Jeong J, Yang H, Cho H. Clinical investigation of laryngeal mask airway. J Korean Soc Anesthesiol 1992; 25: 708–18.
18. Williams PJ, Bailey PM. Comparison of the reinforced laryngeal mask airway and tracheal intubation for adenotonsillectomy. Br J Anaesth 1993; 70: 30–3.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Ojeda, A. M. Lopez, X. Borrat, and R. Valero Failed Tracheal Intubation with the LMA-CTrachTM in Two Patients with Lingual Tonsil Hyperplasia Anesth. Analg., August 1, 2008; 107(2): 601 - 602. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. M. Cook, J. P. Nolan, J. Brimacombe, and C. Keller Failed Obstetric Tracheal Intubation and Postoperative Respiratory Support with the Proseal Laryngeal Mask Airway * Response Anesth. Analg., January 1, 2005; 100(1): 290 - 291. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. M. Dunn, L. Robbins, N. R. Connelly, and W. H. Rosenblatt The LMA ProSeal TM May Not Be the Best Option for Difficult to Intubate/Ventilate Patients * Response Anesth. Analg., July 1, 2004; 99(1): 310 - 311. [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) An erratum has been published Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (8) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Rosenblatt, W. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Rosenblatt, W. H.

Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins with the assistance of Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2006 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999