Comparison between supraglottic airway devices and endotracheal tubes in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Medicine (United States)

Volumn 95, Issue 33, 2016, Pages

  Park, Sun Kyung ^a   Ko, Geum ^b   Choi, Geun Joo ^c   Ahn, Eun Jin ^d   Kang, Hyun ^c  

^a Departments of Neurosurgery   (South Korea)

^b Jeju National University School of Medicine   (South Korea)

^c Chung Ang University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

^d Inje University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

Author keywords

intubation; laparoscopy; laryngeal masks; supraglottic airway

Indexed keywords

AERATION; BRONCHOCONSTRICTION; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); COUGHING; DOUBLE LUMEN TUBE; DYSPHAGIA; DYSPHONIA; ENDOTRACHEAL INTUBATION; ENDOTRACHEAL TUBE; ENDOTRACHEAL TUBE CUFF; EXTUBATION; HOARSENESS; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; LARYNGEAL MASK; LARYNGOPHARYNGEAL REFLUX; LARYNX SPASM; MANOMETRY; META ANALYSIS; OXYGEN DESATURATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PULMONARY ASPIRATION; REVIEW; SORE THROAT; SUPRAGLOTTIC AIRWAY DEVICE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TRACHEAL HEMORRHAGE; ADVERSE EFFECTS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DEVICES; LAPAROSCOPY; PROCEDURES;

HUMANS; INTUBATION, INTRATRACHEAL; LAPAROSCOPY; LARYNGEAL MASKS;

EID: 84983479309     PISSN: 00257974     EISSN: 15365964     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000004598     Document Type: Review

References (45)

1. Teoh W, Lee K, Suhitharan T, et al. Comparison of the LMA Supreme vs the I-gelTM in paralysed patients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopic surgery with controlled ventilation. Anaesthesia 2010;65:1173-9.
2. Valenza F, Chevallard G, Fossali T, et al. Management of mechanical ventilation during laparoscopic surgery. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 2010;24:227-41.
3. Doyle MT, Twomey CF, Owens TM, et al. Gastroesophageal reflux and tracheal contamination during laparoscopic cholecystectomy and diagnostic gynecological laparoscopy. Anesth Analg 1998;86:624-8.
4. Owens TM, Robertson P, Twomey C, et al. The incidence of gastroesophageal reflux with the laryngeal mask: a comparison with the face mask using esophageal lumen pH electrodes. Anesth Analg 1995;80:980-4.
5. Hong S, Ko K, Park J, et al. Effectiveness of the Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway (SLIPA (TM)) in allowing positive pressure ventilation during gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. Anaesth Intensive Care 2011;39:618.
6. Brimacombe J. The advantages of the LMA over the tracheal tube or facemask: a meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth 1995;42:1017-23.
7. Seung HY, Beirne OR. Laryngeal mask airways have a lower risk of airway complications compared with endotracheal intubation: a systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;68:2359-76.
8. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:264-9.
9. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Br Med J 2003;327:557.
10. Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5. 1. 0. The Cochrane Collaboration 2011.
11. IntHout J, Ioannidis JP, Borm GF. The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014;14:25.
12. Naing C, Aung K, Mak JW. Reporting 'number needed to treat' in metaanalyses: a cross-sectional study. J Evid Based Med 2012;5:232-7.
13. Brimacombe J. The advantages of the LMA over the tracheal tube or facemask: a meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth 1995;42:1017-23.
14. Yu SH, Beirne OR. Laryngeal mask airways have a lower risk of airway complications compared with endotracheal intubation: a systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;68:2359-76.
15. Cook T, Howes B. Supraglottic airway devices: recent advances. Continuing Educ Anaesth Crit Care Pain 2011;11:56-61.
16. Braun U, Zerbst M, Borkowski A. Ein Jahr Proseal-LMA: Gibt es einen Vorteil gegenuber der ITN? Journal fur Anasthesie und Intensivbehandlung 2002;9:24-124.
17. Abdi W, Amathieu R, Adhoum A, et al. Sparing the larynx during gynecological laparoscopy: a randomized trial comparing the LMA Supreme and the ETT. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2010;54:141-6.
18. Carron M, Veronese S, Gomiero W, et al. Hemodynamic and hormonal stress responses to endotracheal tube and ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway for laparoscopic gastric banding. Anesthesiology 2012;117: 309-20.
19. Hartmann T, Krenn CG, Zoeggeler A, et al. The oesophageal-tracheal Combitube Small Adult. Anaesthesia 2000;55:670-5.
20. Hohlrieder M, Brimacombe J, Eschertzhuber S, et al. A study of airway management using the ProSeal LMA laryngeal mask airway compared with the tracheal tube on postoperative analgesia requirements following gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. Anaesthesia 2007;62:913-8.
21. Hohlrieder M, Brimacombe J, von Goedecke A, et al. Postoperative nausea, vomiting, airway morbidity, and analgesic requirements are lower for the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway than the tracheal tube in females undergoing breast and gynaecological surgery. Br J Anaesth 2007;99:576-80.
22. Lim Y, Goel S, Brimacombe JR. The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway is an effective alternative to laryngoscope-guided tracheal intubation for gynaecological laparoscopy. Anaesth Intensive Care 2007;35:52-6.
23. Maltby JR, Beriault MT, Watson NC, et al. Gastric distension and ventilation during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: LMA-Classic vs. tracheal intubation. Can J Anaesth 2000;47:622-6.
24. Maltby JR, Beriault MT, Watson NC, et al. The LMA-ProSeal is an effective alternative to tracheal intubation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Can J Anaesth 2002;49:857-62.
25. Maltby JR, Beriault MT, Watson NC, et al. LMA-Classic and LMAProSeal are effective alternatives to endotracheal intubation for gynecologic laparoscopy. Can J Anaesth 2003;50:71-7.
26. Ozdamar D, Guvenc BH, Toker K, et al. Comparison of the effect of LMA and ETT on ventilation and intragastric pressure in pediatric laparoscopic procedures. Minerva Anestesiol 2010;76:592-9.
27. Sinha A, Sharma B, Sood J. ProSeal as an alternative to endotracheal intubation in pediatric laparoscopy. Paediatr Anaesth 2007;17:327-32.
28. Swann DG, Spens H, Edwards SA, et al. Anaesthesia for gynaecological laparoscopy-a comparison between the laryngeal mask airway and tracheal intubation. Anaesthesia 1993;48:431-4.
29. Uerpairojkit K, Charuluxananan S, Werawatganon T, et al. Profile Soft-Seal Cuff for general anesthesia under ambulatory gynecologic laparoscopy. J Med Assoc Thai 2009;92:1184-90.
30. Roth H, Genzwuerker HV, Rothhaas A, et al. The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway and the laryngeal tube suction for ventilation in gynaecological patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2005;22:117-22.
31. Ho BY, Skinner HJ, Mahajan RP. Gastro-oesophageal reflux during day case gynaecological laparoscopy under positive pressure ventilation: laryngeal mask vs. tracheal intubation. Anaesthesia 1998;53:921-4.
32. Maharjan SK. I-gel for positive pressure ventilation. J Nepal Med Assoc 2013;52:255-9.
33. Hong SJ, Ko KM, Park JH, et al. Effectiveness of the Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway (SLIPATM) in allowing positive pressure ventilation during gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. Anaesth Intensive Care 2011;39:618-22.
34. Timmermann A. Supraglottic airways in difficult airway management: successes, failures, use and misuse. Anaesthesia 2011;66:45-56.
35. Kaplan A, Crosby GJ, Bhattacharyya N. Airway protection and the laryngeal mask airway in sinus and nasal surgery. Laryngoscope 2004;114:652-5.
36. Seet E, Rajeev S, Firoz T, et al. Safety and efficacy of laryngeal mask airway supreme versus laryngeal mask airway ProSeal: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2010;27:602-7.
37. Bercker S, Schmidbauer W, Volk T, et al. A comparison of seal in seven supraglottic airway devices using a cadaver model of elevated esophageal pressure. Anesth Analg 2008;106:445-8.
38. Jones MJ, Mitchell RW, Hindocha N. Effect of increased intraabdominal pressure during laparoscopy on the lower esophageal sphincter. Anesth Analg 1989;68:63-5.
39. Higgins P, Chung F, Mezei G. Postoperative sore throat after ambulatory surgery. Br J Anaesth 2002;88:582-4.
40. Uerpairojkit K, Charuluxananan S, Werawatganon T, et al. Profile Soft-Seal CuffTM for general anesthesia under ambulatory gynecologic laparoscopy. J Med Assoc Thai 2009;92:1184-90.
41. Carron M, Veronese S, Gomiero W, et al. Hemodynamic and hormonal stress responses to endotracheal tube and ProSeal Laryngeal Mask AirwayTM for laparoscopic gastric banding. J Am Soc Anesthesiol 2012;117:309-20.
42. Ulrich-Pur H, Hrska F, Krafft P, et al. Comparison of mucosal pressures induced by cuffs of different airway devices. J Am Soc Anesthesiol 2006;104:933-8.
43. Hartmann T, Krenn C, Zoeggeler A, et al. The oesophageal-tracheal Combitube Small Adult: an alternative airway for ventilatory support during gynaecological laparoscopy. Anaesthesia 2000;55:670-5.
44. Bein B, Carstensen S, GleimM, et al. Acomparison of the proseal laryngeal mask airway (, the laryngeal tube S ( and the oesophageal-tracheal combitube ( during routine surgical procedures. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2005;22:341-6.
45. Oczenski W, Krenn H, Dahaba A, et al. Complications following the use of the Combitube, tracheal tube and laryngeal mask airway. Anaesthesia 1999;54:1161-5.