Version 1
: Received: 17 May 2024 / Approved: 20 May 2024 / Online: 20 May 2024 (09:49:46 CEST)
How to cite:
Castillo-Monzón, C. G.; Marroquín-Valz, H. A.; Gaszynski, T.; Cayuela, M.; Orozco, J.; Ratajczyk, P. How Head Position Affects Laryngeal Vision with a Video Laryngeal Mask Airway?. Preprints2024, 2024051231. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202405.1231.v1
Castillo-Monzón, C. G.; Marroquín-Valz, H. A.; Gaszynski, T.; Cayuela, M.; Orozco, J.; Ratajczyk, P. How Head Position Affects Laryngeal Vision with a Video Laryngeal Mask Airway?. Preprints 2024, 2024051231. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202405.1231.v1
Castillo-Monzón, C. G.; Marroquín-Valz, H. A.; Gaszynski, T.; Cayuela, M.; Orozco, J.; Ratajczyk, P. How Head Position Affects Laryngeal Vision with a Video Laryngeal Mask Airway?. Preprints2024, 2024051231. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202405.1231.v1
APA Style
Castillo-Monzón, C. G., Marroquín-Valz, H. A., Gaszynski, T., Cayuela, M., Orozco, J., & Ratajczyk, P. (2024). How Head Position Affects Laryngeal Vision with a Video Laryngeal Mask Airway?. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202405.1231.v1
Chicago/Turabian Style
Castillo-Monzón, C. G., Javier Orozco and Pawel Ratajczyk. 2024 "How Head Position Affects Laryngeal Vision with a Video Laryngeal Mask Airway?" Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202405.1231.v1
Abstract
Background: The laryngeal mask airway Vision Mask (LMA VM) is a supraglottic airway device (SAD) with vision guidance system. The ideal head and neck position for direct laryngoscopy is known, but the ideal position for placing a LMA is not. The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare the optimal position for placement of a video laryngeal mask airway. Methods: This was a prospective observational, transversal and analytical study of 72 consecutive patients. In the same patient, laryngeal vision was first assessed with the head and neck in the sniffing position and then with the head in the neutral position. Procedures were filmed and performed by the same investigator. Assessment of the laryngeal view was performed using two classifications: modified Cormack-Lehane classification and Brimacombe classification. Device placement was considered adequate when the Cormack-Lehane rating was scored from 1 to 2 and the Brimacombe rating was from 2 to 4. Results: 72 patients were included in this study. In the assessment of the glottis using the Cormack Lehane classification for fiberoptic view, laryngeal visibility was adequate in 64 (88.89%) patients in the neutral position and in 65 (90,28%) patients in the sniffing position (p>0,05). In the fiberoptic view of the glottis, assessed using the Brimacombe classification, laryngeal visibility was adequate in 68 (93%) patients in the neutral position and in 69 (95%) patients in the sniffing position, (p>0,05). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of success between the sniffing position (70 patients, 97.22% success rate) and the neutral position (67 patients, 93.06% success rate) during the first insertion attempt. Two patients required a second attempt in the sniffing position, while five patients required a second attempt in the neutral position. Conclusion: An adequate sniffing position did not result in a better glottic view than neutral position, and the number and type of additional maneuvers were equal in both positions.
Keywords
supraglottic airway device; head position; glottis view; videolaryngeal mask
Subject
Medicine and Pharmacology, Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
Copyright:
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
,
,
,
