Evaluation of the Complications Effectiveness and Frequency When Using Second-Generation Supraglottic Airways in Laparoscopic Interventions in the Trendelenburg Position

Relevance. The supraglottic airways (SA) are now more and more often used as devices of the first choice for providing ventilation during surgical interventions of low trauma and duration, during laparoscopic operations as well. Nevertheless, some concerns remain about the possibility of using these devices in operations accompanied by a significant increase in intra-abdominal pressure, for example, when performing laparoscopy, especially in the Trendelenburg position.

Aim of study. Comparison of the efficiency and safety of ventilation, the incidence of postoperative complications when using two different types of SA during laparoscopic surgical interventions performed in the Trendelenburg position.

Material and methods. Eighty-three gynecological patients who were scheduled to undergo laparoscopic surgery in the Trendelenburg position were randomly assigned to two groups. In the 1st group, a laryngeal tube was installed for general anesthesia, in the 2nd group patients had a laryngeal mask. The adequacy of ventilation, gas exchange rates, oropharyngeal leakage pressure, rate of successful placement, mean and peak airway pressure at various stages of surgery, as well as the frequency of intra- and postoperative complications were assessed.

Results. In all observations, there were normal indicators of gas exchange and capnography, no leakage of the breathing mixture from the circuit. The level of oropharyngeal leakage pressure was statistically different in the groups and was 32 (28; 35) in the 1st group and 28.5 (27; 31.8) cm of water column in the 2nd group. (p=0.007). The time to the onset of ventilation was 19s (18; 21) in the laryngeal tube group, 21s (19; 22.5) in the laryngeal mask group; statistically significant differences were not obtained by this criterion (p=0.059). The first installation attempt was successful in 40 cases (93%) in the 1st group and in 38 cases (95%) in the 2nd group; there was no significant difference in this indicator (p=0.94). The peak and mean airway pressure at the stages of surgery also did not differ. The study did not reveal such intraoperative complications as dislocation of the airway and aspiration of gastric contents. When analyzing postoperative complications, statistical differences were obtained in terms of the level of sore throat 3 hours after removal of SA. In terms of sore throat after 5 minutes, 6, 12, 24 hours, the frequency of hoarseness, no differences were found.

Conclusion. 1. The use of different types of 2nd generation supraglottic airways with inflatable cuff (s) provides reliable protection of the upper airway during anesthesia and effective ventilation during laparoscopic surgery in the Trendelenburg position. 2. The laryngeal mask and laryngeal tube did not differ significantly in the frequency of successful insertion, ventilation efficiency, airway pressure levels at various stages of surgery, and the incidence of intra- and postoperative complications. 3. The use of a laryngeal tube provided a higher level of oropharyngeal leakage pressure, while the differences with the laryngeal mask for this indicator were statistically significant.

1. Cook T, Woodall N, Frerk, C. Major complications of airway management in the UK: results of the Fourth National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Difficult Airway Society. Part 1: Anaesthesia. Br J Anaest. 2011;106(5):617–631. PMID: 21447488. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aer058

2. Badheka JP, Jadliwala RM, Chhaya VA, Parmar VS, Vasani A, Rajyaguru AM. I-gel as an alternative to endotracheal tube in adult laparoscopic surgeries: A comparative study. J Minim Access Surg. 2015;11(4):251–256. PMID: 26622115. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-9941.140210

3. Michalek P, Donaldson W, Vobrubova E, Hakl M. Complications Associated with the Use of Supraglottic Airway Devices in Perioperative Medicine. BioMed Res Int. 2015:746560. PMID: 26783527. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/746560

4. Van Esch BF, Stegeman I, Smit A. Comparison of laryngeal mask airway vs tracheal intubation: a systematic review on airway complications. J Clin Anesth. 2017;36:142–150. PMID: 28183554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2016.10.004

5. Yu SH, Beirne OR. Laryngeal mask airways have a lower risk of airway complications compared with endotracheal intubation: A systematic review. J Oral Maxillof Surg. 2010;68(10):2359–2376. PMID: 20674126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2010.04.017

6. Beleña J, Gracia J, Ayala J, Núñez M, Lorenzo J, de los Reyes A, et al. The Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme for positive pressure ventilation during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Clin Anesth. 2011;23(6):456–460. PMID: 21911191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2011.01.004

7. Yoon SW, Kang H, Choi GJ, Ryu C, Park YH, Baek CW, et al. Comparison of supraglottic airway devices in laparoscopic surgeries: A network meta-analysis. J Clin Anesth. 2019;55:52–66. PMID: 30597453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2018.12.044

8. Choi SR, Lee TY, Kim SW, Park SY, Chung CJ, Kim JH. Comparison of clinical performance of i-gel® and Baska Mask® during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Korean J Anesth. 2019;72(6):576–582. PMID: 31426623. https://doi.org/10.4097/kja.19195

9. Gupta R, Mahajan R, Jatinder M, Gulati S, Mehta A, Nazir R. A comparison between ProSeal laryngeal mask airway and Air-Q Blocker in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2019;35(3):340–347. PMID: 31543582. https://doi.org/10.4103/joacp.JOACP_397_17

10. Sabuncu U, Kusderci HS, Oterkus M, Abdullayev R, Demir A, Uludag O, et al. AuraGain and i-Gel laryngeal masks in general anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Performance characteristics and effects on hemodynamics. Saudi Med J. 2018;39(11):1082–1089. PMID: 30397706. https://doi.org/10.15537/smj.2018.11.22346

11. Cook T, Kelly F. Time to abandon the ‘vintage’ laryngeal mask airway and adopt second-generation supraglottic airway devices as first choice. Br J Anaesth. 2015;115(4):497–499. PMID: 25995266. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aev156

12. Andreenko AA, Dolbneva EL, Stamov VI. Airway Management in Hospital. Russian Federation of Anesthesiologists and Reanimatologists Guidelines (second edition, 2018). Annals of Critical Care. 2019;(2):7–31. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21320/1818-474X-2019-2-7-31

13. Mukadder S, Zekine B, Erdogan K, Ulku O, Muharrem U, Saim Y, et al. Comparison of the Proseal, Supreme, and I-Gel SAD in Gynecological Laparoscopic Surgeries. Scientific World J. 2015:634320. PMID: 25802890. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/634320

14. Lemos J, De Oliveira GS Jr, de Pereira Cardoso HE, Lemos LD, de Carvalho LR, Módolo NS. Gastric regurgitation in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopy with a laryngeal mask airway: a prospective observational study. J Clin Anesth. 2017;36:32–35. PMID: 28183569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2016.07.038

15. Roth H, Genzwuerker HV, Rothhaas A, Finteis T, Schmeck J. The ProSeal™ Laryngeal Mask Airway and the Laryngeal Tube Suction™ for ventilation in gynaecological patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2005;22(2):117–122. PMID: 15816590. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265021505000220

16. Paul PG, Mathew T, Shintre H, Bulusu S, Paul G, Mannur S. Postoperative pulmonary complications following laparoscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24(7):1096–1103. PMID: 28735736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2017.06.029

17. Böttger TC, Hermeneit S, Müller M, Terzic A, Rodehorst A, Elad L, et al. Modifiable surgical and anesthesiologic risk factors for the development of cardiac and pulmonary complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc. 2009;23(9):2016–2025. PMID: 19462205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-9916-x

18. Singh K, Gurha P. Comparative evaluation of Ambu AuraGain™ with ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Indian J Anaesth. 2017;61(6):469–474. PMID: 28655951. https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.IJA_163_17

19. Zhang L, Seet E, Mehta V, Subramanyam R, Ankichetty SP, Wong DT, Chung F, et al. Oropharyngeal leak pressure with the laryngeal mask airway Supreme™ at different intracuff pressures: a randomized controlled trial. Can J Anesth. 2011;58(7):624–629. PMID: 21533663. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-011-9514-6