Skip to main content
Log in

Does cuff pressure monitoring reduce postoperative pharyngolaryngeal adverse events after LMA-ProSeal insertion? A parallel group randomised trial

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Anesthesia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The incidence of postoperative pharyngolaryngeal complications after laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion can be as high as 50 %. Over-inflation of the LMA cuff may be a causal factor. We conducted a single-centre parallel group randomised trial to determine whether maintaining LMA-ProSeal intra-cuff pressures below 60 cm H2O decreases postoperative pharyngolaryngeal complications.

Methods

We recruited 120 adult patients who were scheduled to undergo elective surgery under general anaesthesia. Appropriate sized LMA-ProSeal was inserted and the cuff was inflated with air (to no more than the maximum recommended volume) until there was no audible leak. Patients were randomised to either the control group (n = 60), where the intra-cuff pressure was noted and no further action was taken, or to the pressure-monitored group (n = 60), where intra-cuff pressure was maintained below 60 cm H2O. Pharyngolaryngeal complications consisting of sore throat, dysphonia and dysphagia were assessed at 1, 2, and 24 h postoperatively. Patients, anaesthesiologists and assessors were blinded to group allocation. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of any pharyngolaryngeal complication at any of the three time points. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of individual outcomes at each time point.

Results

The incidence of pharyngolaryngeal complications at any time point was 42 % in the routine care group and 32 % in the pressure-monitored group (95 % CI for difference +28 to −7 %, p = 0.26). There was no difference between groups for any of the secondary outcomes.

Conclusion

Our study failed to demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in postoperative pharyngolaryngeal complications by limiting intra-cuff pressures in the LMA-Proseal.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Seet E, Yousaf F, Gupta S, Subramanyam R, Wong DT, Chung F. Use of manometry for laryngeal mask airway reduces postoperative pharyngolaryngeal adverse events: a prospective, randomized trial. Anesthesiology. 2010;112:652–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Brimacombe J, Holyoake L, Keller C, Brimacombe N, Scully M, Barry J, Talbutt P, Sartain J, McMahon P. Pharyngolaryngeal, neck, and jaw discomfort after anesthesia with the face mask and laryngeal mask airway at high and low cuff volumes in males and females. Anesthesiology. 2000;93:26–31.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Cook TM, Lee G, Nolan JP. The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: a review of the literature. Can J Anaesth. 2005;52:739–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. McHardy FE, Chung F. Postoperative sore throat: cause, prevention and treatment. Anaesthesia. 1999;54:444–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Burgard G, Möllhoff T, Prien T. The effect of laryngeal mask cuff pressure on postoperative sore throat incidence. J Clin Anesth. 1996;8:198–201.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Nott MR, Noble PD, Parmar M. Reducing the incidence of sore throat with the laryngeal mask airway. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 1998;15:153–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Rieger A, Brunne B, Striebel HW. Intracuff pressures do not predict laryngopharyngeal discomfort after use of the laryngeal mask airway. Anesthesiology. 1997;87:63–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Figueredo E, Vivar-Diago M, Muñoz-Blanco F. Laryngo-pharyngeal complaints after use of the laryngeal mask airway. Can J Anaesth. 1999;46:220–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Brimacombe J, Keller C. The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: a randomized, crossover study with the standard laryngeal mask airway in paralyzed, anesthetized patients. Anesthesiology. 2000;93:104–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. LMA ProSeal. 2014. http://www.lmana.com/pwpcontrol.php?pwpID=4494). Accessed 1 Feb 2014.

  11. Sharma B, Gupta R, Sehgal R, Koul A, Sood J. ProSeal laryngeal mask airway cuff pressure changes with and without use of nitrous oxide during laparoscopic surgery. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2013;29:47–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Keller C, Puhringer F, Brimacombe JR. Influence of cuff volume on oropharyngeal leak pressure and fiberoptic position with the laryngeal mask airway. Br J Anaesth. 1998;81:186–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Evans NR, Gardner SV, James MF, King JA, Roux P, Bennett P, Nattrass R, Llewellyn R, Visu D. The Proseal laryngeal mask: results of a descriptive trial with experience of 300 cases. Br J Anaesth. 2002;88:534–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kuppusamy A, Azhar N. Comparison of bougie-guided insertion of Proseal laryngeal mask airway with digital technique in adults. Indian J Anaesth. 2010;54:35–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Priya Ranganathan.

About this article

Cite this article

Vasanth Karthik, R., Ranganathan, P., Kulkarni, A.P. et al. Does cuff pressure monitoring reduce postoperative pharyngolaryngeal adverse events after LMA-ProSeal insertion? A parallel group randomised trial. J Anesth 28, 662–667 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-014-1811-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-014-1811-0

Keywords

Navigation