Cricoid-mental distance-based versus weight-based criteria for size selection of classic laryngeal mask airway in adults: a randomized controlled study

  • Yanling Zhu
  • Weihua Shen
  • Yiquan Lin
  • Ting Huang
  • Ling Xie
  • Yao Yang
  • Hongbin ChenEmail author
  • Xiaoliang Gan
Original Research


The optimal size selection of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) based on body weight is not always applicable. This study was prospectively conducted to evaluate the efficacy of cricoid-mental distance-based method versus weight-based method in optimal size selection of LMA in adults. Seventy-four patients (aged from 18 to 65) undergoing ophthalmic surgery were randomly assigned into cricoid-mental (CM) distance-based group or weight-based group to select appropriate size of LMA. The primary outcome was oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP). Secondary outcomes included overall insertion success rate, number of insertion attempts, time to successful insertion, ease of insertion, score of fiber-optic view, peak inspiratory pressure during mechanical ventilation and postoperative pharyngolaryngeal morbidity. The OLP was significantly higher in CM distance-based group than that in weight-based group (19.38 ± 3.52 vs. 17.50 ± 3.18, P = 0.022). The successful placement at the first attempt in CM distance-based group was dramatically increased as compared with weight-based group (89.2% vs. 62.2%, P = 0.005). The overall success rate of LMA insertion in CM distance-based group was slightly increased in comparison with the weight-based group (100% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.240). There were no significant differences in score of fiber-optic view and postoperative pharyngolaryngeal morbidity between both groups (all P > 0.05). CM distance-based criteria is an alternative choice for optimizing size selection of classic LMA in adults.


Laryngeal mask airway Size Adults Cricoid cartilage Mentum 



This study was supported by the Clinical Research Project of Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center (3030901010073).


This research received no specific Grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures conducted in our study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional review board and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1

Video flexible laryngoscope (TIC-SD-II, UE Medical Corp., Taizhou, China) (JPEG 12 kb)

10877_2019_308_MOESM1_ESM.jpg (12 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (JPEG 11 kb)


  1. 1.
    Gordon J, Cooper RM, Parotto M. Supraglottic airway devices: indications, contraindications and management. Minerva Anestesiol. 2018;84:389–97.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cook TM, Woodall N, Harper J, Benger J. 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 2: intensive care and emergency departments. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106:632–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bhardwaj N, Yaddanapudi S, Singh S, Pandav SS. Insertion of laryngeal mask airway does not increase the intraocular pressure in children with glaucoma. Paediatr Anaesth. 2011;21:1036–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    The LMA supreme instruction manual. Maidenhead: Intravent Orthofix Ltd; 2007.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haliloglu M, Bilgen S, Uzture N, Koner O. Simple method for determining the size of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in children: a prospective observational study. Rev Bras Anestesiol. 2017;67:15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kim MS, Lee JS, Nam SB, Kang HJ, Kim JE. Randomized comparison of actual and ideal body weight for size selection of the laryngeal mask airway classic in overweight patients. J Korean Med Sci. 2015;30:1197–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Avidan A, Eden A, Reider E, Weissman C, Levin PD. Multicentre validation of manufacturers’ weight-based recommendations for laryngeal mask airway size choice in anaesthetic practice: a retrospective analysis of 20,893 cases. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2015;32:432–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rice MJ, Mancuso AA, Gibbs C, Morey TE, Gravenstein N, Deitte LA. Cricoid pressure results in compression of the postcricoid hypopharynx: the esophageal position is irrelevant. Anesth Analg. 2009;109:1546–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schmalfuss IM, Mancuso AA, Tart RP. Postcricoid region and cervical esophagus: normal appearance at CT and MR imaging. Radiology. 2000;214:237–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    El-Orbany M, Woehlck H, Salem MR. Head and neck position for direct laryngoscopy. Anesth Analg. 2011;113:103–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shin HW, Yoo HN, Bae GE, Chang JC, Park MK, You HS, Kim HJ, Ahn HS. Comparison of oropharyngeal leak pressure and clinical performance of LMA ProSeal™ and i-gel® in adults: meta-analysis and systematic review. J Int Med Res. 2016;44:405–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brimacombe J, Berry A. A proposed fiber-optic scoring system to standardize the assessment of laryngeal mask airway position. Anesth Analg. 1993;76:457.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Huang YH, Cherng CH. Optimal size selection of the classic laryngeal mask airway by tongue width-based method in male adults. J Chin Med Assoc. 2014;77:422–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Uppal V, Fletcher G, Kinsella J. Comparison of the i-gel with the cuffed tracheal tube during pressure-controlled ventilation. Br J Anaesth. 2009;102:264–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Frerk C, Mitchell VS, McNarry AF, Mendonca C, Bhagrath R, Patel A, O’Sullivan EP, Woodall NM, Ahmad I. Difficult Airway Society 2015 guidelines for management of unanticipated difficult intubation in adults. Br J Anaesth. 2015;115:827–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bernhard M, Gries A, Ramshorn-Zimmer A, Wenzel V, Hossfeld B. Insertion success of the laryngeal tube in emergency airway management. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:3619159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim MS, Lee JR, Shin YS, Chung JW, Lee KH, Ahn KR. Comparison of 2 cuff inflation methods of laryngeal mask airway Classic for safe use without cuff manometer in adults. Am J Emerg Med. 2014;32:237–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cattano D, Zundert TV, Wojtzack J, Cai C, Callender R, Marjiya SE, Hagberg C. A new method to test concordance between extraglottic airway device dimensions and patient anatomy. Anesthesiology. 2014; A3148.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Zundert TC, Hagberg CA, Cattano D. Standardization of extraglottic airway devices, is it time yet? Anesth Analg. 2013;117:750–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van Zundert TC, Hagberg CA, Cattano D. Inconsistent size nomenclature in extraglottic airway devices. Minerva Anestesiol. 2014;80:692–700.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cattano D, Wojtczak JA, Callender R, Cai C, Tezino T, van Zundert TCRV, Hagberg CA. External neck landmark identification and measurement correlation in a normal weight cohort. J Anesthesiol Clin Sci. 2014;3:7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Anesthesiology, State Key Laboratory of OphthalmologyZhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen UniversityGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.Department of Eye Trauma, State Key Laboratory of OphthalmologyZhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen UniversityGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations