Journal of Anesthesia

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 580–584 | Cite as

Muscle relaxant effects on insertion efficacy of the laryngeal mask ProSeal® in anesthetized patients: a prospective randomized controlled trial

  • Atsushi Fujiwara
  • Nobuyasu KomasawaEmail author
  • Isao Nishihara
  • Shinichiro Miyazaki
  • Shinichi Tatsumi
  • Wataru Nishimura
  • Toshiaki Minami
Original Article



Anesthesiologists often encounter LMA-ProSeal® (ProSeal) insertion difficulty due to its large cuff size. We performed a randomized clinical trial to examine how insertion efficacy and sealing pressure of ProSeal are affected by muscle relaxant administration in anesthetized patients.


Our adult patients were either administered rocuronium (0.9 mg kg−1) as a muscle relaxant (R group; 40 patients) or not (C group; 40 patients). Anesthesia was induced with propofol and fentanyl. We compared the two groups with regard to the number of attempts required for successful insertion, sealing pressure, and subjective difficulty for insertion.


Total insertion attempts required for successful ventilation in the two groups were one (R group, 38 patients; C group, 28 patients), two (R group, one patient; C group, seven patients), and three (R group, one patient; C group, five patients), revealing a significant difference between groups (p < 0.001). Sealing pressure was significantly higher in the R group than in the C group (R group, 27.4 ± 5.4 cmH2O; C group, 21.2 ± 5.2 cmH2O; p < 0.001). Leakage volume by mechanical ventilation was significantly smaller in the R group than in the C group (R group, 17.4 ± 29.1 ml; C group, 46.8 ± 45.5 ml; p < 0.001). Subjective difficulty of insertion was significantly lower in the R group than in the C group (R group, 12.3 ± 23.1 mm; C group, 39.4 ± 31.9 mm; p < 0.001).


Muscle relaxation appears to facilitate ProSeal insertion efficacy by enabling higher successful insertion rates, higher sealing pressure, lower leakage volume, and lower subjective difficulty of insertion in anesthetized patients.


LMA-ProSeal® Muscle relaxant Sealing pressure Insertion efficacy 



Financial support for this study was provided by each author’s affiliated institution.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no affiliation with any manufacturer of any device described in the manuscript and declare no financial interest in relation to the material described here.


  1. 1.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asai T, Murao K, Shingu K. Efficacy of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway during manual in-line stabilisation of the neck. Anaesthesia. 2002;57:918–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goldmann K, Hechtfischer C, Malik A, Kussin A, Freisburger C. Use of ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in 2,114 adult patients: a prospective study. Anesth Analg. 2008;107:1856–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brimacombe J, Keller C. A proposed algorithm for the management of airway obstruction with the Proseal laryngeal mask airway. Anesth Analg. 2005;100:298–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eschertzhuber S, Brimacombe J, Hohlrieder M, Stadlbauer KH, Keller C. Gum elastic bougie-guided insertion of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway is superior to the digital and introducer tool techniques in patients with simulated difficult laryngoscopy using a rigid neck collar. Anesth Analg. 2008;107:1253–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Okutani R, Ogawa S. Utility of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway creating a 90 degree angle with an intubating stylet. J Anesth. 2010;24:492–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ikeda A, Isono S, Sato Y, Yogo H, Sato J, Ishikawa T, Nishino T. Effects of muscle relaxants on mask ventilation in anesthetized persons with normal upper airway anatomy. Anesthesiology. 2012;117:487–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Warters RD, Szabo TA, Spinale FG, DeSantis SM, Reves JG. The effect of neuromuscular blockade on mask ventilation. Anaesthesia. 2011;66:163–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Komasawa N, Nishihara I, Tatsumi S, Minami T. Pre-warming i-gel® to 42°C facilitates successful insertion and ventilation efficacy with muscle relaxation: a randomized study. J Clin Anesth 2014;26:663–667.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wright PM, Caldwell JE, Miller RD. Onset and duration of rocuronium and succinylcholine at the adductor pollicis and laryngeal adductor muscles in anesthetized humans. Anesthesiology. 1994;81:1110–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Komasawa N, Ueki R, Yamamoto N, Atagi K, Nishi S, Kaminoh Y, Tashiro C. Comparison of air-Q® and Soft Seal® laryngeal mask for airway management by novice doctors during infant chest compression: a manikin study. Resuscitation. 2012;83:365–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Natalini G, Lanza G, Rosano A, Dell’Agnolo P, Bernardini A. Standard laryngeal mask airway and LMA-ProSeal during laparoscopic surgery. J Clin Anesth. 2003;15:428–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cook TM, Lee G, Nolan JP. The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: a review of the literature. Can J Anaesth. 2005;52:739–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Komasawa N, Ueki R, Kaminoh Y, Nishi S. Evaluation of chest compression effect on airway management with air-Q®, aura-i®, i-gel®, and Fastrack® intubating supraglottic devices by novice physicians: a randomized crossover simulation study. J Anesth. 2014;28:676–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Howath A, Brimacombe J, Keller C, Kihara S. Gum elastic bougie-guided placement of the ProSeal laryngeal mask. Can J Anaesth. 2002;49:528–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Howath A, Brimacombe J, Keller C. Gum-elastic bougie-guided insertion of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: a new technique. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2002;30:624–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Keller C, Brimacombe J. Influence of neuromuscular block, mode of ventilation and respiratory cycle on pharyngeal mucosal pressures with the laryngeal mask airway. Br J Anaesth. 1999;83:480–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chen BZ, Tan L, Zhang L, Shang YC. Is muscle relaxant necessary in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery with a ProSeal LMA™? J Clin Anesth. 2013;25:32–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kuna ST. Respiratory-related activation and mechanical effects of the pharyngeal constrictor muscles. Respir Physiol. 2000;119:155–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Asai T, Brimacombe J. Review article: cuff volume and size selection with the laryngeal mask. Anaesthesia. 2000;55:1179–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kihara S, Brimacombe JR, Yaguchi Y, Taguchi N, Watanabe S. A comparison of sex- and weight-based ProSeal laryngeal mask size selection criteria: a randomized study of healthy anesthetized, paralyzed adult patients. Anesthesiology. 2004;101:340–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Asai T, Murao K, Yukawa H, Shingu K. Re-evaluation of appropriate size of the laryngeal mask airway. Br J Anaesth. 1999;83:478–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Atsushi Fujiwara
    • 1
  • Nobuyasu Komasawa
    • 1
    Email author
  • Isao Nishihara
    • 2
  • Shinichiro Miyazaki
    • 1
  • Shinichi Tatsumi
    • 1
  • Wataru Nishimura
    • 1
  • Toshiaki Minami
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of AnesthesiologyOsaka Medical CollegeTakatsukiJapan
  2. 2.Department of AnesthesiologyHokusetsu General HospitalTakatsukiJapan

Personalised recommendations