J Korean Med Sci.  2015 Aug;30(8):1197-1202. 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.8.1197.

Randomized Comparison of Actual and Ideal Body Weight for Size Selection of the Laryngeal Mask Airway Classic in Overweight Patients

• Kim MS
• Lee JS
• Nam SB
• Kang HJ
• Kim JE

• KMID: 2164517
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2015.30.8.1197

Abstract

Size selection of the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) Classic based on actual body weight remains a common practice. However, ideal body weight might allow for a better size selection in obese patients. The purpose of our study was to compare the utility of ideal body weight and actual body weight when choosing the appropriate size of the LMA Classic by a randomized clinical trial. One hundred patients with age 20 to 70 yr, body mass index > or =25 kg/m2, and the difference between LMA sizes based on actual weight and ideal weight were allocated to insert the LMA Classic using either actual body weight or ideal body weight in a weight-based formula for size selection. After insertion of the device, several variables including insertion parameters, sealing function, fiberoptic imaging, and complications were investigated. The insertion success rate at the first attempt was lower in the actual weight group (82%) than in the ideal weight group (96%), even it did not show significant difference. The ideal weight group had significantly shorter insertion time and easier placement. However, fiberoptic views were significantly better in the actual weight group. Intraoperative complications, sore throat in the recovery room, and dysphonia at postoperative 24 hr occurred significantly less often in the ideal weight group than in the actual weight group. It is suggested that the ideal body weight may be beneficial to the size selection of the LMA Classic in overweight patients (Clinical Trial Registry, NCT 01843270).

Keyword

Airway Management; Laryngeal Masks; Body Weight; Complications

MeSH Terms

Adult
Aged
*Body Weight
Equipment Design
Female
Human Engineering/*methods
Humans
Ideal Body Weight/*physiology
Laryngeal Masks/*classification
Male
Middle Aged
Overweight/*physiopathology
Prosthesis Fitting/*methods
Reproducibility of Results
Republic of Korea
Sensitivity and Specificity
Young Adult

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 CONSORT flow diagram to illustrate the study design.

Reference

1. Brimacombe J, Keller C. Laryngeal mask airway size selection in males and females: ease of insertion, oropharyngeal leak pressure, pharyngeal mucosal pressures and anatomical position. Br J Anaesth. 1999; 82:703–707.

2. Zahoor A, Ahmad N, Sereche G, Riad W. A novel method for laryngeal mask airway size selection in paediatric patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2012; 29:386–390.

3. Kim HJ, Park MJ, Kim JT, Kim CS, Kim SD, Kim HS. Appropriate laryngeal mask airway size for overweight and underweight children. Anaesthesia. 2010; 65:50–53.

4. Berry AM, Brimacombe JR, McManus KF, Goldblatt M. An evaluation of the factors influencing selection of the optimal size of laryngeal mask airway in normal adults. Anaesthesia. 1998; 53:565–570.

5. Voyagis GS, Batzioulis PG, Secha-Doussaitou PN. Selection of the proper size of laryngeal mask airway in adults. Anesth Analg. 1996; 83:663–664.

6. Asai T, Howell TK, Koga K, Morris S. Appropriate size and inflation of the laryngeal mask airway. Br J Anaesth. 1998; 80:470–474.

7. 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; 101:340–343.

8. Asai T, Brimacombe J. Review article: cuff volume and size selection with the laryngeal mask. Anaesthesia. 2000; 55:1179–1184.

9. Martin SE, Mathur R, Marshall I, Douglas NJ. The effect of age, sex, obesity and posture on upper airway size. Eur Respir J. 1997; 10:2087–2090.

10. Busetto L, Calo E, Mazza M, De Stefano F, Costa G, Negrin V, Enzi G. Upper airway size is related to obesity and body fat distribution in women. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2009; 266:559–563.

11. Pai MP, Paloucek FP. The origin of the "ideal" body weight equations. Ann Pharmacother. 2000; 34:1066–1069.

12. Meyhoff CS, Lund J, Jenstrup MT, Claudius C, Sørensen AM, Viby-Mogensen J, Rasmussen LS. Should dosing of rocuronium in obese patients be based on ideal or corrected body weight? Anesth Analg. 2009; 109:787–792.

13. Jaber S, Coisel Y, Chanques G, Futier E, Constantin JM, Michelet P, Beaussier M, Lefrant JY, Allaouchiche B, Capdevila X, et al. A multicentre observational study of intra-operative ventilatory management during general anaesthesia: tidal volumes and relation to body weight. Anaesthesia. 2012; 67:999–1008.

14. Brain A. Proper technique for insertion of the laryngeal mask. Anesthesiology. 1990; 73:1053–1054.

15. 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; 32:237–242.

16. Inagawa G, Okuda K, Miwa T, Hiroki K. Higher airway seal does not imply adequate positioning of laryngeal mask airways in paediatric patients. Paediatr Anaesth. 2002; 12:322–326.

17. Galvin EM, van Doorn M, Blazquez J, Ubben JF, Zijlstra FJ, Klein J, Verbrugge SJ. A randomized prospective study comparing the Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway and Laryngeal Mask Airway-Classic during controlled ventilation for gynecological laparoscopy. Anesth Analg. 2007; 104:102–105.

18. Asai T, Murao K, Yukawa H, Shingu K. Re-evaluation of appropriate size of the laryngeal mask airway. Br J Anaesth. 1999; 83:478–479.

19. Theiler L, Kleine-Brueggeney M, Urwyler N, Graf T, Luyet C, Greif R. Randomized clinical trial of the i-gel™ and Magill tracheal tube or single-use ILMA™ and ILMA™ tracheal tube for blind intubation in anaesthetized patients with a predicted difficult airway. Br J Anaesth. 2011; 107:243–250.

20. Van Zundert AA, Fonck K, Al-Shaikh B, Mortier E. Comparison of the LMA-classic with the new disposable soft seal laryngeal mask in spontaneously breathing adult patients. Anesthesiology. 2003; 99:1066–1071.

21. Ali A, Canturk S, Turkmen A, Turgut N, Altan A. Comparison of the laryngeal mask airway Supreme and laryngeal mask airway Classic in adults. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2009; 26:1010–1014.

22. Lee CM, Yang HS. Case of difficult intubation overcome by the laryngeal mask airway. J Korean Med Sci. 1993; 8:290–292.

23. Brimacombe J, Keller C, Fullekrug B, Agrò F, Rosenblatt W, Dierdorf SF, Garcia de Lucas E, Capdevilla X, Brimacombe N. A multicenter study comparing the ProSeal and Classic laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized, nonparalyzed patients. Anesthesiology. 2002; 96:289–295.