Laryngeal mask airway for Caesarean section

The use of a laryngeal mask airway is described in a patient for emergency Caesarean section, when tracheal intubation was not possible. Provision of the laryngeal mask airway for use in the Maternity Unit is discussed.     

Use of a ProSeal laryngeal mask airway for airway maintenance during emergency Caesarean section after failed tracheal intubation

We report the use of the ProSeal^TM laryngeal mask airway toestablish and maintain the airway during emergency Caesareansection when tracheal intubation had failed with conventionallaryngoscopy and mask ventilation was difficult. The ProSeal^TMlaryngeal mask allowed controlled ventilation without gas leakand facilitated drainage of the stomach. Br J Anaesth 2004; 92: 144–6     

Laryngeal mask airway for airway control during percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy

Percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy is a common bedside procedure in critical care for patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation. The traditional technique requires withdrawal of the endotracheal tube to a proximal position to facilitate tracheostomy insertion, but this carries the risk of inadvertent extubation and does not prevent cuff rupture. Use of a supraglottic airway such as the laryngeal mask airway may avoid these risks and could provide a safe alternative to the endotracheal tube. We present an appraisal of the literature to date. We found reasonable evidence to show improved ventilation and bronchoscopic visualisation with the laryngeal mask airway, but this has not been translated into improved outcome. There is currently insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the safety of the laryngeal mask airway during percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy.     

Laryngeal mask airway with spontaneous breathing

Journal of Anesthesia -     

Laryngeal mask airway insertion with remifentanil

INTRODUCTION: We conducted a study to find out the best conditions for LMA insertion with two different doses of remifentanil added to propofol and propofol administered alone. METHODS: Following hospital clinical research ethics committee approval, 60 ASA I-II patients were included in the randomized double-blind study. Following premedication, patients received i.v. 0.25 microg kg(-1) remifentanil (Group R1), 0.50 microg kg(-1) remifentanil (Group R2) or normal saline (Group P) in 60 sec. Then following 20 mg lidocaine, propofol 2 mg kg(-1) were administered in R1 and R2 groups and 2.5 mg kg(-1) in P group. Ease of insertion of LMA and airway quality at first attempt was assessed. Number of attempts of LMA insertion, apnea time, additional propofol requirement and hemodynamic changes were recorded. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in demographic data among the patients. Apnea time (mean +/- SEM) was significantly shorter in P group (34.09 +/- 5.5 sec) compared to R1 (82.5 +/- 12.7 sec) and R2 (87.2 +/- 6.6 sec) groups (p = 0.01 and p = 0.001). Ease of LMA insertion was assessed as grade 1 in 100% of patients in R2 group while 65% in R1 and 30% in P groups. Undesirable responses following LMA insertion were observed in 54% of patients in P group. CONCLUSION: Propofol given 2.5 mg kg(-1) alone is not a good agent for LMA insertion. Remifentanil used in both doses combined with propofol provides good and excellent conditions for insertion of LMA with minimal hemodynamic disturbances.