A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

How does head position affect laryngeal vision with a video laryngeal mask airway? | LitMetric

Background: The Laryngeal Mask Airway Vision Mask (LMA VM) is a supraglottic airway device (SAD) with a vision guidance system. The ideal head and neck position for direct laryngoscopy is known, but the ideal position for placing a LMA is not. The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare the optimal position for placement of a video laryngeal mask airway.

Methods: This prospective, observational, transversal, and analytical study was performed in 72 consecutive patients. In the same patient, laryngeal vision was first assessed with the head and neck in the sniffing position and then with the head in the neutral position. Procedures were performed by the same investigator. The assessment of the laryngeal view was performed using two classifications: Cormack-Lehane classification and Brimacombe classification. The placement of the device was considered adequate when the Cormack-Lehane rating was between 1 and 2 and the Brimacombe rating between 2 and 4.

Results: In this study, 72 patients participated. In the assessment of the glottis using the Cormack-Lehane classification for fibre-optic view, laryngeal visibility was adequate in 64 (88.89%) patients in the neutral position and in 65 (90, 28%) patients in the sniffing position ( > 0.05). In the fibre-optic view of the glottis, evaluated using the Brimacombe classification, laryngeal visibility was adequate in 68 (93%) patients in the neutral position and in 69 (95%) patients in the sniffing position ( > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of success between the sniffing position (70 patients, 97.22% success rate) and the neutral position (67 patients, 93.06% success rate) during the first insertion attempt. Two patients required a second attempt in the sniffing position, while five patients required a second attempt in the neutral position.

Conclusion: An adequate sniffing position did not result in a better glottic view than the neutral position. Additional manoeuvres were equal in both positions. The head-neck position does not influence on the placement of a third-generation SAD.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11686431PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1469225DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

sniffing position
24
neutral position
20
position
15
laryngeal mask
12
position patients
12
patients
10
laryngeal
8
laryngeal vision
8
video laryngeal
8
head neck
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!