Relationship between cricoid-mental distance based on external neck landmarks and laryngeal mask size selection

doi:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-1245.2024.15.022

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective　To explore a new method for selecting laryngeal mask sizes measuring the cricoid-mental distance (CMD) based on external neck landmarks. Methods　This was prospective study. Ninety-eight patients undergoing selective surgery under general anesthesia with classic laryngeal masks at Sanshui District People's Hospital from November 2019 to October 2020 were selected, and 4 cases cancelled the surgery because of their personal reasons. Ninety-four patients were included, including 36 males and 58 females who were 18-65 years old. During the preoperative visit, their gender, age, height, body weight, modified Mallampati classification, and degree of mouth opening were recorded. The CMD was measured before the anesthesia. The patients with successful laryngeal mask insertion were grouped according to the laryngeal mask sizes. The general data and CMD were compared between the three groups. The logistic regression analysis was used to identify the factors influencing laryngeal mask size selection. The analysis of variance and χ² test were applied. Results　There were statistical differences in age, body weight, and CMD between the patients using 3 different laryngeal mask sizes [(37.75±9.05) years vs. (33.62±11.98) years vs. (29.11±9.80) years, (46.74±3.58) kg vs. (57.26±6.52) kg vs. (70.86±10.61) kg, and (7.85±0.83) cm vs. (9.34±0.74) cm vs. (11.64±0.65) cm; F=7.643, 51.126, and 156.135; all P<0.05]. The logistic regression analysis revealed correlation of laryngeal mask size selection with weight and CMD (both P<0.05). The 95% confidence intervals for CMD of the three laryngeal mask sizes were as below: laryngeal mask 3's CMD 6.19-9.51 cm (17.02%, 16 cases); laryngeal mask 4's CMD 7.87-10.81 cm (53.19%, 50 cases); laryngeal mask 5's CMD 10.34-12.94 cm (29.79%, 28 cases). Conclusions　CMD can serve as an indicator for selecting laryngeal mask sizes. If the CMD is 7.87～10.81 cm, laryngeal mask 4 is recommended; CMD <7.87 cm, laryngeal mask 3; CMD >10.81 cm, laryngeal mask 5.

Key words:

, Laryngeal mask, Airway management, Cricoid cartilage, Mentum, Logistic regression

摘要：

目的　本研究通过对颈外体表标志环颏距进行测量，旨在探讨喉罩型号选择的新方法。方法　前瞻性研究，选取2019年11月至2020年10月在佛山市三水区人民医院使用经典喉罩全身麻醉行择期手术的98例患者，其中有4例患者因自身原因取消手术，共有94例患者进入数据分析，男36例、女58例，年龄18～65岁。术前访视时，测量和记录数据，包括性别、年龄、身高、体质量、改良的Mallampti分级、张口度等。在麻醉前，测量并记录环颏距。将喉罩置入成功患者按不同喉罩型号进行分组，对比3组患者一般资料及环颏距差异，采用logistics回归分析喉罩型号的影响因素。统计学方法采用方差分析、χ²检验。结果　3种型号喉罩患者年龄、体质量、环颏距比较［（37.75±9.05）岁比（33.62±11.98）岁比（29.11±9.80）岁、（46.74±3.58）kg比（57.26±6.52）kg比（70.86±10.61）kg、（7.85±0.83）cm比（9.34±0.74）cm比（11.64±0.65）cm］，差异均有统计学意义（F=7.643、51.126、156.135，均P<0.05）。logistic回归分析显示，喉罩型号选择与体质量、环颏距存在相关关系（均P<0.05）。通过绘制小提琴图和计算3种型号喉罩患者环颏距的95%可信区间，可得到环颏距推荐适用范围为环颏距7.87～10.81 cm选择4号（占53.19%，50例），环颏距<7.87 cm选择3号（占17.02%，16例），环颏距>10.81 cm选择５号（占29.79%，28例）。结论　环颏距可以作为选择喉罩大小的指标，在临床操作上更为简便快速，可有效提高手术过程，具有较强的临床实用性。

关键词:

喉罩, 气道管理, 环状软骨, 颏, logistic回归

Liu Baoyun, Huang Haoxian, Huang Minzhen, Sheng Hengwei.

Relationship between cricoid-mental distance based on external neck landmarks and laryngeal mask size selection [J]. International Medicine and Health Guidance News, 2024, 30(15): 2574-2578.

刘宝芸黄浩贤黄敏贞盛恒炜.

颈外体表标志环颏距与喉罩型号选择的临床研究 [J]. 国际医药卫生导报, 2024, 30(15): 2574-2578.

References

[1] Brain AI. The development of the laryngeal mask--a brief history of the invention, early clinical studies and experimental work from which the laryngeal mask evolved[J].Eur J Anaesthesiol Suppl,1991,4:5-17.
[2] Link MS, Berkow LC, Kudenchuk PJ, et al. Part 7: adult advanced cardiovascular life support: 2015 American heart association guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care[J].Circulation,2015,132(18 Suppl 2):S444-S464.DOI:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000261.
[3] Leister N, Heindl LM, Rokohl AC, et al. Laryngeal mask airway versus endotracheal intubation during lacrimal duct stenosis surgery in children-a retrospective analysis[J].Children (Basel),2024,11(3):320.DOI:10.3390/children11030320.
[4] Lyons C, O'Sullivan EP. The airway and the british journal of anaesthesia: 100 years[J].Br J Anaesth,2023,131(5):789-793.DOI:10.1016/j.bja.2023.08.027.
[5] Jia Y, Zhang Y, Wang Z, et al. Influence of endotracheal tube and laryngeal mask airway for general anesthesia on perioperative adverse events in patients undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis[J].J Res Med Sci,2024,28:88.DOI:10.4103/jrms.jrms_384_22.
[6] Ubale P, Jadhav A. An observational study to evaluate the haemodynamic changes between endotracheal intubation and laryngeal mask airway insertion[J].Int J Contemp Med Res,2020,7(4): D5-D10.DOI:10.1186/s12871-019-0711-0.
[7] Yu SH, Beirne OR. Laryngeal mask airways have a lower risk of airway complications compared with endotracheal intubation: a systematic review[J].J Oral Maxillofac Surg,2010,68(10):2359-2376.DOI:10.1016/j.joms. 2010.04.017.
[8] van Zundert TC, Brimacombe JR, Ferson DZ, et al. Archie brain: celebrating 30 years of development in laryngeal mask airways[J].Anaesthesia,2012,67(12):1375-1385.DOI:10.1111/anae.12003.x.
[9] Frerk CM, Mitchell VS, McNarry AF, et al. Difficult airway society 2015 guidelines for management of unanticipated difficult intubation in adults: need to be revisited? Reply[J]. Br J Anaesth,2016,117(4):529-530.DOI:10.1093/bja/aew279.
[10] Ren Y, Cao C, Liang X, et al. Validation of manufacturers' laryngeal mask airway size selection standard: a large retrospective study[J].Ann Transl Med,2021,9(3):196.DOI:10.21037/atm-20-4838.
[11] Haliloglu M, Bilgen S, Uzture N, et al. Simple method for determining the size of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in children: a prospective observational study[J].Braz J Anesthesiol,2017,67(1):15-20.DOI:10.1016/j.bjane.2015.06.004.
[12] Effect of placement of laryngeal masks at different target controlled concentrations of propofol on pharyngeal pain in patients undergoing hysteroscopy [J]. International Medicine and Health Guidance News, 2023, 29(12): 1698-1703. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-1245. 2023.12.016
[13] Gordon J, Cooper RM, Parotto M. Supraglottic airway devices: indications, contraindications and management[J].Minerva Anestesiol,2018,84(3):389-397.DOI:10.23736/S0375-9393.17.12112-7.
[14] van Zundert T, Hagberg C, Marcus M, et al. Inconsistent size nomenclature in extraglottic airway devices: 19AP3-8[J]. Eur J Anaesthesiol,2013,30:257.DOI:10.1097/00003643-201306001-00807.
[15] van Zundert TCRV, Hagberg CA, Cattano D. Standardization of extraglottic airway devices, is it time yet?[J].Anesth Analg,2013,117(3):750-752.DOI:10.1213/ANE.0b013e31829f368b.
[16] Cattano D, Wojtczak JA, Callender R, et al. External neck landmark identification and measurement correlation in a normal weight cohort[J]. J Anesthesiol Clin Sci,2014,3:1-6.DOI:10.7243/2049-9752-3-7.
[17] Lee SM, Wojtczak JA, Cattano D. Ultrasound comparison of external and internal neck anatomy with the LMA unique[J].J Ultrason,2017,17(71):229-234.DOI:10.15557/JoU.2017.0033.
[18] Mishra R, Kaur R, Suri A, et al. Comparison of weight-based and pinna size method for ProSeal laryngeal mask airway size selection in children receiving general anesthesia: a randomized clinical study[J].J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol,2024,40(1):63-68.DOI:10.4103/joacp.joacp_217_22.
[19] Shetabi H, Shahriari A, Aghadavoudi O. Conditions for insertion of the laryngeal mask airway in an innovative method vs the classic method[J].Anesth Pain Med,2023,13(6):e140999.DOI:10.5812/aapm-140999.
[20] Pang N, Pan F, Chen R, et al. Laryngeal mask airway versus endotracheal intubation as general anesthesia airway managements for atrial fibrillation catheter ablation: a comparative analysis based on propensity score matching[J].J Interv Card Electrophysiol,2024:16.DOI:10.1007/s10840-024-01742-w.
[21] Ramesh S, Jayanthi R. Supraglottic airway devices in children[J].Indian J Anaesth,2011,55(5):476-482.DOI:10.4103/0019-5049.89874.
[22] Katsiampoura AD, Killoran PV, Corso RM, et al. Laryngeal mask placement in a teaching institution: analysis of difficult placements[J].F1000Res,2015,4:102.DOI:10.12688/f1000research.6415.1.
[23] Apfelbaum JL, Hagberg CA, Caplan RA, et al. 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[J].Anesthesiology,2013,118(2):251-270.DOI:10.1097/ALN.0b013e31827773b2.
[24] Black AE, Flynn PE, Smith HL, et al. Development of a guideline for the management of the unanticipated difficult airway in pediatric practice[J].Paediatr Anaesth,2015,25(4):346-362.DOI:10.1111/pan.12615.
[25] Huang YH, Cherng CH. Optimal size selection of the classic laryngeal mask airway by tongue width-based method in male adults[J].J Chin Med Assoc,2014,77(8):422-425.DOI:10.1016/j.jcma.2014.05.009.
[26] Rossiter JD, Wood M, Lockwood A, et al. Operating conditions for ocular surgery under general anaesthesia: an eccentric problem[J].Eye (Lond),2006,20(1):55-58.DOI:10.1038/sj.eye.6701789.
[27] Rice MJ, Mancuso AA, Gibbs C, et al. Cricoid pressure results in compression of the postcricoid hypopharynx: the esophageal position is irrelevant[J].Anesth Analg,2009,109(5):1546-1552.DOI:10.1213/ane.0b013e3181b05404.
[28] Schmalfuss IM, Mancuso AA, Tart RP. Postcricoid region and cervical esophagus: normal appearance at CT and MR imaging[J].Radiology,2000,214(1):237-246.DOI:10.1148/radiology.214.1.r00dc42237.
[29] Korkmaz YN DDS, Buyuk SK DDS PhD, Genç E DDS. Comparison of hyoid bone positions and pharyngeal airway dimensions in different body mass index percentile adolescent subjects[J].Cranio,2020,38(5):286-291.DOI:10.1080/08869634.2018.1543828.