Indian Journal of Anaesthesia  
About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Past Issues | Instructions
Home | Login  | Users Online: 1310  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size    




 
 Table of Contents    
COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 62  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 241-242  

Only with an optimal position of the supraglottic airway in situ, valid conclusions can be drawn about oropharyngeal airway pressure


Department of Anaesthesia, and Perioperative Medicine, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Date of Web Publication14-Mar-2018

Correspondence Address:
Prof. André AJ Van Zundert
Department of Anaesthesia, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, University of Queensland, NHB – Level 4, Butterfield Street, Herston, Brisbane, QLD 4029
Australia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ija.IJA_135_18

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Zundert AA, Wyssusek KH. Only with an optimal position of the supraglottic airway in situ, valid conclusions can be drawn about oropharyngeal airway pressure. Indian J Anaesth 2018;62:241-2

How to cite this URL:
Zundert AA, Wyssusek KH. Only with an optimal position of the supraglottic airway in situ, valid conclusions can be drawn about oropharyngeal airway pressure. Indian J Anaesth [serial online] 2018 [cited 2019 Dec 10];62:241-2. Available from: http://www.ijaweb.org/text.asp?2018/62/3/241/227336



Sir,

We were interested by the recent publication of Banerjee et al. in the Indian Journal of Anaesthesia on the comparison of the ProSeal and the i-gel supraglottic airway devices (SADs) in different head-and-neck positions in anaesthetised paralysed children.[1] The authors did not detect a significant difference in the oropharyngeal leak pressures, fibreoptic gradings and ventilation scores in three positions (neutral and maximum flexion/extension).

Although the oropharyngeal leak pressure is the golden standard in SADs, no conclusion can be drawn if the first one does not ascertain the correct position of the device in the hypopharynx. Fibreoptic evaluation of the position of the airway is the norm and used by the authors. However, it is clear from their results of the fibreoptic grading of the two SADs in three different head-and-neck positions that the overall majority of the airway devices was not in the optimal position, defined as: epiglottis sitting on the outside of the cuff, with an unobstructed view of the glottis, showing the posterior side of the epiglottis, but not the tip of the epiglottis.[2],[3],[4] The authors showed less-than-optimal positions, i.e., with the tip of the epiglottis sitting in the bowl of the device, and a complete view of the vocal cords (suboptimal), or a partially covered view of the vocal cords, showing the anterior side of the down-folded epiglottis (impaired), or a completely covered view of the entrance to the trachea due to the complete down folding of the epiglottis, which potentially may obstruct the airway, cause trauma to the region and impair gas exchange (failed). More than 75% of all three head-and-neck positions with the two SADs studied by the authors resulted in a less-than-optimal positioned airway as graded by fibreoptic view [Table 2] of the authors' study].[1]

We would like to encourage the authors to repeat their study with SADs sitting in an optimal anatomical position in the hypopharynx using a vision-guided insertion technique with a videolaryngoscope and determine whether different head-and-neck positions result in changes in the oropharyngeal leak pressures and ventilation. Recently, we advocated using a vision-guided insertion technique of SADs based on a 'detect-correct-as-you-go technique' using standardised jaw lift manoeuvres to immediately correct any malpositioned airway device.[2],[3]

Furthermore, it would be wise to measure the intracuff pressure after insertion of the cuffed SAD, to make sure that the seal around the entrance to the glottis is 40–60 cmH2O, avoiding under- and over-pressure, as the latter two may influence the oropharyngeal leak pressure.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Banerjee G, Jain D, Bala I, Gandhi K, Samujh R. Comparison of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway with the i-gel in the different head-and-neck positions in anaesthetised paralysed children: A randomised controlled trial. Indian J Anaesth 2018;62:103-8.  Back to cited text no. 1
  [Full text]  
2.
Van Zundert AA, Kumar CM, Van Zundert TC. Malpositioning of supraglottic airway devices: Preventive and corrective strategies. Br J Anaesth 2016;116:579-82.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Van Zundert AA, Gatt SP, Kumar CM, Van Zundert TC, Pandit JJ. 'Failed supraglottic airway': An algorithm for suboptimally placed supraglottic airway devices based on videolaryngoscopy. Br J Anaesth 2017;118:645-9.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Van Zundert AA, Gatt SP, Kumar CM, Van Zundert TC. Vision-guided placement of supraglottic airway device prevents airway obstruction: A prospective audit. Br J Anaesth 2017;118:462-3.  Back to cited text no. 4
    




 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed629    
    Printed3    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded108    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal