We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
The Safety of the Laryngeal Mask Airway in Adenotonsillectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND: Adenotonsillectomy is one of the most common surgical procedures worldwide. The current standard for securing the airway in patients undergoing adenotonsillectomy is endotracheal tube (ETT) intubation. Several studies have investigated the use of the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) in this procedure. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of the LMA versus ETT in adenotonsillectomy.
METHOD: Databases were searched from inception to 2022 for randomized controlled trials and comparative studies. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. The primary outcome is the rate of perioperative respiratory adverse events (PRAEs). Secondary outcomes included the rate of conversion to ETT, desaturations, nausea/vomiting, and surgical time. A subgroup analysis, risk of bias, publication bias, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessments were also performed.
RESULTS: Twelve studies were included in the analysis (4176 patients). The mean overall conversion to ETT was 8.36% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 8.17, 8.54], and for the pediatric group 8.27% (95% CI = 8.08, 8.47). The mean rate of conversion to ETT secondary to complications was 2.89% (95% CI = 2.76, 3.03) while the rest was from poor surgical access. Overall, there was no significant difference in PRAEs [odds ratio (OR) 1.16, 95% CI = 0.60, 2.22], desaturations (OR 0.79, 95% CI = 0.38, 1.64), or minor complications (OR 0.89, 95% CI = 0.50, 1.55). The use of LMA yielded significantly shorter operative time (mean difference -4.38 minutes, 95% CI = -8.28, -0.49) and emergence time (mean difference -4.15 minutes, 95% CI = -5.63, -2.67).
CONCLUSION: For adenotonsillectomy surgery, LMA is a safe alternative to ETT and requires less operative time. Careful patient selection and judgment of the surgeon and anesthesiologist are necessary, especially given the 8% conversion to ETT rate.
METHOD: Databases were searched from inception to 2022 for randomized controlled trials and comparative studies. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. The primary outcome is the rate of perioperative respiratory adverse events (PRAEs). Secondary outcomes included the rate of conversion to ETT, desaturations, nausea/vomiting, and surgical time. A subgroup analysis, risk of bias, publication bias, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessments were also performed.
RESULTS: Twelve studies were included in the analysis (4176 patients). The mean overall conversion to ETT was 8.36% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 8.17, 8.54], and for the pediatric group 8.27% (95% CI = 8.08, 8.47). The mean rate of conversion to ETT secondary to complications was 2.89% (95% CI = 2.76, 3.03) while the rest was from poor surgical access. Overall, there was no significant difference in PRAEs [odds ratio (OR) 1.16, 95% CI = 0.60, 2.22], desaturations (OR 0.79, 95% CI = 0.38, 1.64), or minor complications (OR 0.89, 95% CI = 0.50, 1.55). The use of LMA yielded significantly shorter operative time (mean difference -4.38 minutes, 95% CI = -8.28, -0.49) and emergence time (mean difference -4.15 minutes, 95% CI = -5.63, -2.67).
CONCLUSION: For adenotonsillectomy surgery, LMA is a safe alternative to ETT and requires less operative time. Careful patient selection and judgment of the surgeon and anesthesiologist are necessary, especially given the 8% conversion to ETT rate.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app