Comparison of laryngeal mask airway vs tracheal intubation: a systematic review on airway complications
Abstract To determine whether the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) has advantages over the tracheal tube (TT) in terms of incidence of cough, sore throat, laryngospasm, dysphagia, dysphonia, and blood staining. This is a systematic literature review performed at the Universtity Medical Center of Utrecht....
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of clinical anesthesia 2017-02, Vol.36, p.142-150 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 150 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | |
| container_start_page | 142 |
| container_title | Journal of clinical anesthesia |
| container_volume | 36 |
| creator | van Esch, Babette F., MD, PhD Stegeman, Inge, MD, PhD Smit, Adriana. L., MD, PhD |
| description | Abstract To determine whether the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) has advantages over the tracheal tube (TT) in terms of incidence of cough, sore throat, laryngospasm, dysphagia, dysphonia, and blood staining. This is a systematic literature review performed at the Universtity Medical Center of Utrecht. The online databases PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials. Two independent reviewers selected relevant articles after title, abstract, and full text screening. Articles were assessed on risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Study results of the LMA and the TT were related to the method of selection of the device size and the method for cuff inflation. Of the 1718 unique articles, we included 19 studies which used the LMA Classic, the LMA Proseal, the Flexible Reinforced LMA, and the LMA Supreme compared with TT. After methodological inspection, data could not be pooled due to heterogeneity among the selected studies. Overall, no clear advantage of the LMA over the TT was found but the LMA Supreme was related to the lowest incidence of airway complications. In this review, no clear difference in incidence of postoperative airway complications could be demonstrated between LMA and TT. The LMA Supreme may reduce the incidence of airway complication in comparison to the TT but high quality randomized trials are recommended to further objectify if use of the LMA decreases the risk on postoperative airway complications. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jclinane.2016.10.004 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1872828875</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0952818016309084</els_id><sourcerecordid>1867542286</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c484t-9f98b6164c59a7f5eecf71358dedda0701998769c37fea4abe3cebba36d998e03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkktv1DAUhS0EokPhL1SR2LDJ4HdsFohqxEuqxAJYW45zU5zmMdhJq_n33DDTLrqBlXWvv3use44JuWB0yyjTb7ttF_o4-hG2HGtsbimVT8iGmUqUUnH7lGyoVbw0zNAz8iLnjiKhOHtOzjg2hVJyQ65307D3KeZpLKa26H06jNfg-2Lw-abwMd35Q3Gbizn58Gvtx3Feaj_HaXxX-CIf8gwDlqFIcBvhrkCd01RA5T6Gv2x-SZ61vs_w6nSek5-fPv7YfSmvvn3-uru8KoM0ci5ta02tmZZBWV-1CiC0FRPKNNA0nlaUWWsqbYOoWvDS1yAC1LUXusELoOKcvDnq7tP0e4E8uyHmAH2PTk1LdmgPN9yYSv0HqislOTca0deP0G5a0oiLOE65pEZbwZDSRyqkKecErdunOKCjjlG3puY6d5-aW1Nb-5gJDl6c5Jd6gOZh7D4mBD4cAUDr0ObkcogwBmhigjC7Zor_fuP9I4mVwnj6GzhAftiHucwddd_Xv7N-HaYFtdRI8QcWisH5</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2024086931</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of laryngeal mask airway vs tracheal intubation: a systematic review on airway complications</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>van Esch, Babette F., MD, PhD ; Stegeman, Inge, MD, PhD ; Smit, Adriana. L., MD, PhD</creator><creatorcontrib>van Esch, Babette F., MD, PhD ; Stegeman, Inge, MD, PhD ; Smit, Adriana. L., MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract To determine whether the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) has advantages over the tracheal tube (TT) in terms of incidence of cough, sore throat, laryngospasm, dysphagia, dysphonia, and blood staining. This is a systematic literature review performed at the Universtity Medical Center of Utrecht. The online databases PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials. Two independent reviewers selected relevant articles after title, abstract, and full text screening. Articles were assessed on risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Study results of the LMA and the TT were related to the method of selection of the device size and the method for cuff inflation. Of the 1718 unique articles, we included 19 studies which used the LMA Classic, the LMA Proseal, the Flexible Reinforced LMA, and the LMA Supreme compared with TT. After methodological inspection, data could not be pooled due to heterogeneity among the selected studies. Overall, no clear advantage of the LMA over the TT was found but the LMA Supreme was related to the lowest incidence of airway complications. In this review, no clear difference in incidence of postoperative airway complications could be demonstrated between LMA and TT. The LMA Supreme may reduce the incidence of airway complication in comparison to the TT but high quality randomized trials are recommended to further objectify if use of the LMA decreases the risk on postoperative airway complications.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0952-8180</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-4529</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2016.10.004</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28183554</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Airway complications ; Airway management ; Anesthesia ; Anesthesia & Perioperative Care ; Clinical trials ; Collaboration ; Cough - etiology ; Deglutition Disorders - etiology ; Dysphagia ; Dysphonia - etiology ; Full text ; Humans ; Intubation ; Intubation, Intratracheal - adverse effects ; Intubation, Intratracheal - instrumentation ; Laryngeal mask airway ; Laryngeal Masks - adverse effects ; Laryngismus - etiology ; Pain Medicine ; Patients ; Pharyngitis - etiology ; Postoperative Complications ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - methods ; Studies ; Surgery ; Systematic review ; Tracheal tube</subject><ispartof>Journal of clinical anesthesia, 2017-02, Vol.36, p.142-150</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2016 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Limited Feb 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c484t-9f98b6164c59a7f5eecf71358dedda0701998769c37fea4abe3cebba36d998e03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c484t-9f98b6164c59a7f5eecf71358dedda0701998769c37fea4abe3cebba36d998e03</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0952818016309084$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65534</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28183554$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>van Esch, Babette F., MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stegeman, Inge, MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smit, Adriana. L., MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of laryngeal mask airway vs tracheal intubation: a systematic review on airway complications</title><title>Journal of clinical anesthesia</title><addtitle>J Clin Anesth</addtitle><description>Abstract To determine whether the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) has advantages over the tracheal tube (TT) in terms of incidence of cough, sore throat, laryngospasm, dysphagia, dysphonia, and blood staining. This is a systematic literature review performed at the Universtity Medical Center of Utrecht. The online databases PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials. Two independent reviewers selected relevant articles after title, abstract, and full text screening. Articles were assessed on risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Study results of the LMA and the TT were related to the method of selection of the device size and the method for cuff inflation. Of the 1718 unique articles, we included 19 studies which used the LMA Classic, the LMA Proseal, the Flexible Reinforced LMA, and the LMA Supreme compared with TT. After methodological inspection, data could not be pooled due to heterogeneity among the selected studies. Overall, no clear advantage of the LMA over the TT was found but the LMA Supreme was related to the lowest incidence of airway complications. In this review, no clear difference in incidence of postoperative airway complications could be demonstrated between LMA and TT. The LMA Supreme may reduce the incidence of airway complication in comparison to the TT but high quality randomized trials are recommended to further objectify if use of the LMA decreases the risk on postoperative airway complications.</description><subject>Airway complications</subject><subject>Airway management</subject><subject>Anesthesia</subject><subject>Anesthesia & Perioperative Care</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Collaboration</subject><subject>Cough - etiology</subject><subject>Deglutition Disorders - etiology</subject><subject>Dysphagia</subject><subject>Dysphonia - etiology</subject><subject>Full text</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intubation</subject><subject>Intubation, Intratracheal - adverse effects</subject><subject>Intubation, Intratracheal - instrumentation</subject><subject>Laryngeal mask airway</subject><subject>Laryngeal Masks - adverse effects</subject><subject>Laryngismus - etiology</subject><subject>Pain Medicine</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Pharyngitis - etiology</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - methods</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Tracheal tube</subject><issn>0952-8180</issn><issn>1873-4529</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkktv1DAUhS0EokPhL1SR2LDJ4HdsFohqxEuqxAJYW45zU5zmMdhJq_n33DDTLrqBlXWvv3use44JuWB0yyjTb7ttF_o4-hG2HGtsbimVT8iGmUqUUnH7lGyoVbw0zNAz8iLnjiKhOHtOzjg2hVJyQ65307D3KeZpLKa26H06jNfg-2Lw-abwMd35Q3Gbizn58Gvtx3Feaj_HaXxX-CIf8gwDlqFIcBvhrkCd01RA5T6Gv2x-SZ61vs_w6nSek5-fPv7YfSmvvn3-uru8KoM0ci5ta02tmZZBWV-1CiC0FRPKNNA0nlaUWWsqbYOoWvDS1yAC1LUXusELoOKcvDnq7tP0e4E8uyHmAH2PTk1LdmgPN9yYSv0HqislOTca0deP0G5a0oiLOE65pEZbwZDSRyqkKecErdunOKCjjlG3puY6d5-aW1Nb-5gJDl6c5Jd6gOZh7D4mBD4cAUDr0ObkcogwBmhigjC7Zor_fuP9I4mVwnj6GzhAftiHucwddd_Xv7N-HaYFtdRI8QcWisH5</recordid><startdate>20170201</startdate><enddate>20170201</enddate><creator>van Esch, Babette F., MD, PhD</creator><creator>Stegeman, Inge, MD, PhD</creator><creator>Smit, Adriana. L., MD, PhD</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PJZUB</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PPXIY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170201</creationdate><title>Comparison of laryngeal mask airway vs tracheal intubation: a systematic review on airway complications</title><author>van Esch, Babette F., MD, PhD ; Stegeman, Inge, MD, PhD ; Smit, Adriana. L., MD, PhD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c484t-9f98b6164c59a7f5eecf71358dedda0701998769c37fea4abe3cebba36d998e03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Airway complications</topic><topic>Airway management</topic><topic>Anesthesia</topic><topic>Anesthesia & Perioperative Care</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Collaboration</topic><topic>Cough - etiology</topic><topic>Deglutition Disorders - etiology</topic><topic>Dysphagia</topic><topic>Dysphonia - etiology</topic><topic>Full text</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intubation</topic><topic>Intubation, Intratracheal - adverse effects</topic><topic>Intubation, Intratracheal - instrumentation</topic><topic>Laryngeal mask airway</topic><topic>Laryngeal Masks - adverse effects</topic><topic>Laryngismus - etiology</topic><topic>Pain Medicine</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Pharyngitis - etiology</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - methods</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Tracheal tube</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>van Esch, Babette F., MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stegeman, Inge, MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smit, Adriana. L., MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Health & Nursing</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of clinical anesthesia</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>van Esch, Babette F., MD, PhD</au><au>Stegeman, Inge, MD, PhD</au><au>Smit, Adriana. L., MD, PhD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of laryngeal mask airway vs tracheal intubation: a systematic review on airway complications</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical anesthesia</jtitle><addtitle>J Clin Anesth</addtitle><date>2017-02-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>36</volume><spage>142</spage><epage>150</epage><pages>142-150</pages><issn>0952-8180</issn><eissn>1873-4529</eissn><abstract>Abstract To determine whether the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) has advantages over the tracheal tube (TT) in terms of incidence of cough, sore throat, laryngospasm, dysphagia, dysphonia, and blood staining. This is a systematic literature review performed at the Universtity Medical Center of Utrecht. The online databases PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials. Two independent reviewers selected relevant articles after title, abstract, and full text screening. Articles were assessed on risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Study results of the LMA and the TT were related to the method of selection of the device size and the method for cuff inflation. Of the 1718 unique articles, we included 19 studies which used the LMA Classic, the LMA Proseal, the Flexible Reinforced LMA, and the LMA Supreme compared with TT. After methodological inspection, data could not be pooled due to heterogeneity among the selected studies. Overall, no clear advantage of the LMA over the TT was found but the LMA Supreme was related to the lowest incidence of airway complications. In this review, no clear difference in incidence of postoperative airway complications could be demonstrated between LMA and TT. The LMA Supreme may reduce the incidence of airway complication in comparison to the TT but high quality randomized trials are recommended to further objectify if use of the LMA decreases the risk on postoperative airway complications.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>28183554</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jclinane.2016.10.004</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0952-8180 |
| ispartof | Journal of clinical anesthesia, 2017-02, Vol.36, p.142-150 |
| issn | 0952-8180 1873-4529 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1872828875 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
| subjects | Airway complications Airway management Anesthesia Anesthesia & Perioperative Care Clinical trials Collaboration Cough - etiology Deglutition Disorders - etiology Dysphagia Dysphonia - etiology Full text Humans Intubation Intubation, Intratracheal - adverse effects Intubation, Intratracheal - instrumentation Laryngeal mask airway Laryngeal Masks - adverse effects Laryngismus - etiology Pain Medicine Patients Pharyngitis - etiology Postoperative Complications Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - methods Studies Surgery Systematic review Tracheal tube |
| title | Comparison of laryngeal mask airway vs tracheal intubation: a systematic review on airway complications |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T18%3A05%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20laryngeal%20mask%20airway%20vs%20tracheal%20intubation:%20a%20systematic%20review%20on%20airway%20complications&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20anesthesia&rft.au=van%20Esch,%20Babette%20F.,%20MD,%20PhD&rft.date=2017-02-01&rft.volume=36&rft.spage=142&rft.epage=150&rft.pages=142-150&rft.issn=0952-8180&rft.eissn=1873-4529&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jclinane.2016.10.004&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1867542286%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2024086931&rft_id=info:pmid/28183554&rft_els_id=S0952818016309084&rfr_iscdi=true |