Anesthesia: Essays and Researches  Login  | Users Online: 146 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Home | About us | Editorial board | Ahead of print | Search | Current Issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions | Copyright form | Subscribe | Advertise | Contacts
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 11  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 380-384

ProSeal laryngeal mask airway placement: A comparison of blind versus direct laryngoscopic insertion techniques

Department of Anaesthesia, M. S. Ramaiah Medical College, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Correspondence Address:
Manjunath Abloodu Chikkapillappa
Department of Anaesthesia, M. S. Ramaiah Medical College, Bengaluru, Karnataka
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0259-1162.206274

Rights and Permissions

Background and Objectives: The laryngeal mask airway (LMA) ProSeal is most commonly used supraglottic airway device; it is routinely inserted by blind technique. Although blind insertion technique is most widely used, there are many techniques which are available such as priming the drain tube with a guiding instrument such as a suction catheter, a gum elastic bougie, a Flexi-Slip Stylet, direct laryngoscopy, and even a fiber-optic bronchoscope (FOB). The present study was undertaken to compare and assess the placement of LMA ProSeal using blind versus direct laryngoscopy techniques using FOB. Materials and Methods: A prospective randomized comparative study of 110 patients divided into two groups of 55 each as Group I (blind insertion) and Group II (direct laryngoscopic insertion) after satisfying the inclusion criteria. The anatomical position was assessed by flexible FOB and evaluated based on fiber-optic scoring system. Results: In the present study, demographic characteristics, vital parameters, Mallampati score, and Wilson's score were comparable in both the groups (P > 0.05). The fiber-optic score (FOS) 1 in Group II was 78.18% compared to 60% in Group I, but the difference was statistically not significant (P > 0.05). Furthermore, the mean FOS in Group II was slightly high (3.84 ± 0.87) compared to Group II (1.62 ± 0.87), but the difference was statistically not significant (P > 0.05). Further hemodynamic parameters (P > 0.05) and complications (P > 0.05) were comparable in both the groups. Conclusion: The LMA placement scoring was similar in both blind and direct laryngoscopic techniques. Blind insertion technique is a simpler, easier, and has stood the test of time.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded131    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal