IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0158137.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Airway Complications during and after General Anesthesia: A Comparison, Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Using Flexible Laryngeal Mask Airways and Endotracheal Tubes

Author

Listed:
  • Rui Xu
  • Ying Lian
  • Wen Xian Li

Abstract

Objective: Flexible laryngeal mask airways (FLMAs) have been widely used in thyroidectomy as well as cleft palate, nasal, upper chest, head and neck oncoplastic surgeries. This systematic review aims to compare the incidence of airway complications that occur during and after general anesthesia when using the FLMA and endotracheal intubation (ETT). We performed a quantitative meta-analysis of the results of randomized trials. Methods: A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases was conducted using the key words "flexible laryngeal mask airway" and "endotracheal intubation". Only prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the FLMA and ETT were included. The relative risks (RRs) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using a quality effects model in MetaXL 1.3 software to analyze the outcome data. Results: Ten RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between the FLMA and ETT groups in the incidence of difficulty in positioning the airway [RR = 1.75, 95% CI = (0.70–4.40)]; the occurrence of sore throat at one hour and 24 hours postoperative [RR = 0.90, 95% CI = (0.13–6.18) and RR = 0.95, 95% CI = (0.81–1.13), respectively]; laryngospasms [RR = 0.58, 95% CI = (0.27–1.23)]; airway displacement [RR = 2.88, 95% CI = (0.58–14.33)]; aspiration [RR = 0.76, 95% CI = (0.06–8.88)]; or laryngotracheal soiling [RR = 0.34, 95% CI = (0.10–1.06)]. Patients treated with the FLMA had a lower incidence of hoarseness [RR = 0.31, 95% CI = (0.15–0.62)]; coughing [RR = 0.28, 95% CI = (0.15–0.51)] during recovery in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU); and oxygen desaturation [RR = 0.43, 95% CI = (0.26–0.72)] than did patients treated with ETT. However, the incidence of partial upper airway obstruction in FLMA patients was significantly greater than it was for ETT patients [RR = 4.01, 95% CI = (1.44–11.18)]. Conclusion: This systematic review showed that the FLMA has some advantages over ETT because it results in a lower incidence of hoarseness, coughing and oxygen desaturation. There were no statistically significant differences in the difficulty of intubation or in the occurrence of laryngospasms, postoperative sore throat, airway displacement, aspiration or laryngotracheal soiling. However, there was a higher incidence of partial upper airway obstruction in the FLMA than in the ETT group. We conclude that the FLMA has some advantages over ETT, but surgeons and anesthesiologists should be cautious when applying the mouth gag, moving the head and neck, or performing oropharyngeal procedures to avoid partial upper airway obstruction and airway displacement. The FLMA should not be used on patients at high risk for aspiration.

Suggested Citation

  • Rui Xu & Ying Lian & Wen Xian Li, 2016. "Airway Complications during and after General Anesthesia: A Comparison, Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Using Flexible Laryngeal Mask Airways and Endotracheal Tubes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-19, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0158137
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158137
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0158137
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0158137&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0158137?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0158137. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.