Validation of manufacturers’ laryngeal mask airway size selection standard: a large retrospective study
| Autor: | Zhihai Ju, Guyan Wang, Ling Zhang, Cuicui Cao, Xuan Liang, Xu Cui, Yao-Yao Ren |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2021 |
| Předmět: |
Pediatrics
medicine.medical_specialty business.industry Retrospective cohort study Regression analysis General Medicine Logistic regression Supraglottic airway Clinical Practice 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Laryngeal mask airway 030202 anesthesiology medicine Original Article 030212 general & internal medicine business Difficult airway Selection (genetic algorithm) |
| Zdroj: | Ann Transl Med |
| ISSN: | 2305-5847 2305-5839 |
| Popis: | BACKGROUND: Laryngeal mask airway (LMA) is a prominent supraglottic airway device, widely used especially in difficult airway management. However, the LMA sizes recommended by the manufacturers are not always well matched in clinical practice, which leads to complications. To date, there are rare models to validate whether the manufacturers’ standard is suitable for use in clinical practice. METHODS: A total of 58,956 patients undergoing general anesthesia using LMA device were included in the study between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2018, to validate the adherence rate of LMA sizes according to the manufacturers’ recommendations. A logistic regression analysis was performed based on the actual LMA size used in clinical practice to establish separately size selection guidelines with gender, weight, and age as variables in adults, adolescents, and children. RESULTS: LMA insertions were analyzed in 50,776 (86.1%) adults, 3,548 (6%) adolescents, and 4,632 (7.9%) children. Suitability of manufacturers’ recommendations was higher in children [male: 86.02%; female: 85.09%] than adults [male: 72.75%; female: 78.13%] or adolescents [male: 73.4%; female: 70.79%]. For adults and adolescents, LMA size was better predicted using the regression model rather than the manufacturers’ recommendations [male adults: 82.4% (81.16–83.57%) vs. 73.21% (71.79–74.59%), P |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|