Der Anaesthesist

, Volume 62, Issue 6, pp 447–452

Developing the skill of laryngeal mask insertion

Prospective single center study
  • S. Mohr
  • M.A. Weigand
  • S. Hofer
  • E. Martin
  • A. Gries
  • A. Walther
  • M. Bernhard
Originalien

Abstract

Background

Laryngeal mask insertion (LMI) represents a fundamental skill for anesthesiologists in routine management as well as in difficult airway situations. This study aimed to evaluate the time needed by first year anesthesiology residents to perform 40 LMIs and assessed the associated success rates and the number of attempts needed for successful LMI.

Methods

This prospective single center study evaluated the number of work days, the success rate and the attempts needed for successful LMI (LMA ProSeal™) in consecutive blocks of five LMI procedures and the related difficulties and complications.

Results

From 2007 to 2010 a total of 10 anesthesiology resident physicians were evaluated consecutively. These residents needed a mean of 18.3 ± 4.1 (mean ± standard deviation) working days to successfully perform 40 LMIs. The LMI success rate after the first 5 LMIs increased steadily up to the results after 40 LMIs per resident (LMI success rate within 1 attempt 72 versus 86 %, p = 0.09, LMI success rate within all LMI attempts 74 versus 96 %, p = 0.001). The mean number of attempts required until successful LMI decreased from 1.45 ± 0.82 after the first 5 LMIs to 1.16 ± 0.37 after 40 LMIs (p = 0.03). The most common difficulties associated with unsuccessful LMI by residents that led to handing over to an experienced colleague were small oral aperture (9.8 %), short thick neck, large tongue, blood/mucus in the mouth or throat (each 7.3 %) and retrognathy (4.9 %).

Conclusions

The increasing LMI success rate and the decreasing rate of LMI attempts for successful airway management correlated to a learning curve and development of LMI dexterity over time.

Keywords

Anesthesia, general Airway management Perioperative care Emergency medicine Inservice training 

Entwicklung der Fertigkeit der Laynxmaskeninsertion

Prospektive monozentrische Untersuchung

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Die Insertion einer Larynxmaske (LMI) stellt eine fundamentale Fähigkeit des Anästhesisten sowohl im Routinemanagement als auch im Rahmen einer schwierigen Atemwegssituation dar. Ziel der vorliegenden Untersuchung war es, das von Erstjahresweiterbildungsassistenten benötigte Zeitintervall bis zu Durchführung von 40 LMI und die hiermit assoziierte Erfolgsrate sowie die Zahl der notwendigen Versuche bis zur erfolgreichen LMI zu evaluieren.

Methoden

In der prospektiven monozentrischen Untersuchung wurden die Zahl der Arbeitstage, die Erfolgsraten und die zur erfolgreichen LMI (LMA ProSeal™) benötigten Versuche in konsekutiven Blocks von 5 LMI-Prozeduren ebenso wie die entstandenen Schwierigkeiten und Komplikationen erfasst.

Ergebnisse

Von 2007 bis 2010 wurden 10 anästhesiologische Erstjahresweiterbildungsassistenten konsekutiv evaluiert. Die Weiterbildungsassistenten benötigten durchschnittlich 18,3 ± 4,1 Arbeitstage (Mittelwert ± Standardabweichung) für 40 LMI. Die Erfolgsrate der LMI stieg nach den ersten 5 LMI stetig bis zu den 40 LMI/Weiterbildungsassistent an (Erfolgsrate der LMI im 1. Versuch: 72 vs. 86 %, p = 0,09; Erfolgsrate der LMI bei allen Versuchen: 74 vs. 96 %, p = 0,001). Die Anzahl der benötigten Versuche bis zur erfolgreichen LMI verringerte sich von 1,45 ± 0,82 nach den ersten 5 LMI auf 1,16 ± 0,37 nach 40 LMI (p = 0,03). Die häufigsten Schwierigkeiten, die mit einer nichterfolgreichen LMI durch die Weiterbildungsassistenten einhergingen und zur Übergabe der LMI an einen erfahrenen Kollegen führten, waren schmale Mundöffnung (9,8 %), kurzer/dicker Hals, große Zunge, Blut/Sekret im Mund-Rachen-Raum (je 7,3 %) und Retrognathie (4,9 %).

Schlussfolgerung

Die ansteigende Erfolgsrate der LMI und die sinkende Anzahl an benötigten Versuchen bis zur erfolgreichen LMI korrelierten mit der Lernkurve und der entwickelten Sicherheit der LMI über die Zeit.

Schlüsselwörter

Allgemeinanästhesie Luftwegmanagement Perioperative Versorgung# Notfallmedizin Praktische Übung 

References

  1. 1.
    Hernandez MR, Klock A, Ovassapian A (2012) Evolution of the extraglottic airway: a review of its history, applications, and practical tips for success. Anesth Analg 114:349–368PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bernhard M, Mohr S, Weigand MA et al (2012) Developing the skill of endotracheal intubation: implication for emergency medicine. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 56:164–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Konrad C, Schüpfer G, Wietlisbach M, Gerber H (1998) Learning manual skills in anesthesiology: is there a recommended number of cases for anesthestic procedures? Anesth Analg 86:635–639PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mulcaster JT, Mills J, Hung OR et al (2003) Laryngoscopic intubation—learning and performance. Anesthesiology 98:23–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brimacombe J (1996) Analysis of 1500 laryngeal mask uses by one anaesthetist in adults undergoing routine anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 51:76–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brain AI (1983) The laryngeal mask—a new concept in airway management. Br J Anaesth 55:801–805PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Henderson JJ, Popat MT, Latto IP et al (2004) Difficult Airway Society guidelines for management of the unanticipated difficult intubation. Anaesthesia 59:675–694PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway (2003) Practice guidelines for management of the difficult airway: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. Anesthesiology 98:1269–1277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Timmermann A, Byhahn C, Wenzel V et al (2012) Handlungsempfehlung für das präklinische Atemwegsmanagement. Für Notärzte und Rettungsdienstpersonal. Anästh Intensivmed 53:294–308Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Samsoon GL, Young JR (1987) Difficult tracheal intubation: a retrospective study. Anaesthesia 42:487–490PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cook T, Behringer EC, Benger J (2012) Airway management outside the operation room: hazardous and incompletely studied. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 25:461–469PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Komatsu R, Kasuya Y, Yogo H et al (2010) Learning curves for bag-and-mask ventilation and orotracheal intubation. An application of the cumulative sum method. Anesthesiology 112:1525–1531PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wahlen BM, Roewer N, Lange M, Kranke P (2009) Tracheal intubation and alternative airway management devices used by healthcare professionals with different level of pre-existing skills: a manikin study. Anaesthesia 64:549–554PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Klock PA (2012) Airway simulators and mannequins: a case of high infidelity? Anesthesiology 116:1179–1180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schebesta K, Hüpfl M, Rössler B et al (2012) Airway anatomy of high-fidelity human patient simulators and airway trainers. Anesthesiology 116:1204–1209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Alexander R, Hodgson P, Lomax D, Bullen C (1993) A comparison of the laryngeal mask airway and Guedel airway, bag and facemask for manual ventilation following formal training. Anaesthesia 48:231–234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Klaver NS, Kuizenga K, Ballast A, Fidler V (2007) A comparison of the clinical use of the Laryngeal Tube S and the ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway by first-month anaesthesia residents in anaesthetised patients. Anesthesia 62:723–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Davies PR, Tighe SQ, Greenslade GL, Evans GH (1990) Laryngeal mask airway and tracheal tube insertion by unskilled personnel. Lancet 336:997–999Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stones BJ, Leach AB, Alexander CA et al (1994) The use of the laryngeal mask airway by nurses during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Results of a multicenter trial. Anaesthesia 49:3–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tan MG, Chin ER, Kong CS et al (2005) Comparison of the re-usable LMA classic and two single use laryngeal masks (LMA Unique and SoftSeal) in airway management by novice personnel. Anaesth Intensive Care 33:739–743PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brimacombe J, Keller C, Fullekrug B et al (2002) A multicenter study comparing the ProSeal and Classic laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized, nonparalyzed patients. Anesthesiology 96:289–295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wharton NM, Gibbison B, Gabbott DA et al (2008) I-gel insertion by novices in manikins and patients. Anaesthesia 63:991–995PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Clarke RC, Gardner AI (2008) Anaesthesia trainees’ exposure to airway management in an Australian tertiary adult teaching hospital. Anaesth Intensive Care 36:513–515PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cook TM, Lee G, Nolan JP (2005) The ProSeal™laryngeal mask airway: a review of the literature. Can J Anaesth 25:739–760Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hillebrand H, Motsch J (2007) Laryngeal masks. Possibilities and limits. Anaesthesist 56:617–630PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Smith I, White PF (1992) Use of the laryngeal mask airway as an alternative to a face mask during outpatient arthroscopy. Anesthesiology 77:850–855PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Berlac P, Hyldmo PK, Kongstad P et al (2008) Pre-hospital airway management- guidelines from a task force from the Scandinavian Society for Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 52:897–907PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hwang JW, Park HP, Lim YJ et al (2009) Comparison of two insertion techniques of ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway. Anesthesiology 110:905–907PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Timmermann A (2011) Supraglottic airways in difficult airway management: successes, failures, use and misuse. Anaesthesia 66:45–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Timmermann A, Russo SG, Crozier TA et al (2007) Novices ventilate and intubate quicker and safer via intubating laryngeal mask than by conventional bag-mask ventilation and laryngoscopy. Anesthesiology 107:570–576PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Mohr
    • 1
  • M.A. Weigand
    • 2
  • S. Hofer
    • 1
  • E. Martin
    • 1
  • A. Gries
    • 3
  • A. Walther
    • 4
  • M. Bernhard
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of AnaesthesiologyUniversity Hospital of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.Department of AnaesthesiologyUniversity Hospital of Giessen and MarburgGiessenGermany
  3. 3.Emergency Department/Emergency Admission UnitUniversity Hospital of LeipzigLeipzigGermany
  4. 4.Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care MedicineKlinikum Stuttgart, Katharinenhospital StuttgartStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations