Supraglottic Airway Devices: Present State and Outlook for 2050.

Correct placement of supraglottic airway devices (SGDs) is crucial for patient safety and of prime concern of anesthesiologists who want to provide effective and efficient airway management to their patients undergoing surgery or procedures requiring anesthesia care. In the majority of cases, blind insertion of SGDs results in less-than-optimal anatomical and functional positioning of the airway devices. Malpositioning can cause clinical malfunction and result in interference with gas exchange, loss-of-airway, gastric inflation, and aspiration of gastric contents. A close match is needed between the shape and profile of SGDs and the laryngeal inlet. An adequate first seal (with the respiratory tract) and a good fit at the second seal of the distal cuff and the gastrointestinal tract are most desirable. Vision-guided insertion techniques are ideal and should be the way forward. This article recommends the use of third-generation vision-incorporated-video SGDs, which allow for direct visualization of the insertion process, corrective maneuvers, and, when necessary, insertion of a nasogastric tube (NGT) and/or endotracheal tube (ETT) intubation. A videoscope embedded within the SGD allows a visual check of the glottis opening and position of the epiglottis. This design affords the benefit of confirming and/or correcting a SGD's position in the midline and rotation in the sagittal plane. The first clinically available video laryngeal mask airways (VLMAs) and multiple prototypes are being tested and used in anesthesia. Existing VLMAs are still not perfect, and further improvements are recommended. Additional modifications in multicamera technology, to obtain a panoramic view of the SGD sitting correctly in the hypopharynx and to prove that correct sizes have been used, are in the process of production. Ultimately, any device inserted orally-SGD, ETT, NGT, temperature probe, transesophageal scope, neural integrity monitor (NIM) tubes-could benefit from correct vision-guided positioning. VLMAs also allow for automatic recording, which can be documented in clinical records of patients, and could be valuable during teaching and research, with potential value in case of legal defence (with an airway incident). If difficulties occur with the airway, documentation in the patient's file may help future anesthesiologists to better understand the real-time problems. Both manufacturers and designers of SGDs may learn from optimally positioned SGDs to improve the design of these airway devices.

Anesthesia and perioperative pain relief in the frail elderly patient.

Demand for anesthesia and analgesia for the frail elderly is continuously increasing as the likelihood of encountering very elderly, very vulnerable, and very compromised patients has, ever so subtly, increased over the last three decades. The anesthesiologist has, increasingly, been obliged to offer professional services to frail patients. Fortunately, there has been a dramatic improvement in medications, methods of drug delivery, critical monitoring, and anesthesia techniques. Specific methodologies peculiar to the frail are now taught and practiced across all anesthesia subspecialties. However, administering anesthesia for the frail elderly is vastly different to giving an anesthetic to the older patient. Frail patients are increasingly cared for in specialized units-geriatric intensive therapy units, post-acute care services, palliative, hospices, and supportive care and aged care facilities. Several medications (e.g., morphine-sparing analgesics) more suited to the frail have become universally available in most centers worldwide so that best-practice, evidence-based anesthesia combinations of drugs and techniques are now increasingly employed. Every anesthetic and pain management techniques in the frail elderly patient are going to be discussed in this review.

Features of new vision-incorporated third-generation video laryngeal mask airways.

Numerous studies have shown that blindly inserted supraglottic airway devices (SADs) are sub-optimally placed in 50 to 80% of all cases. Placement under direct vision has been recommended. We describe the very first two new SADs of the third generation that incorporate a videoscope with flexible tip. Both devices are made up of two interlocking components-the SAD and a videoscope. The 3rd generation, direct vision SADs allow vision-guided insertion, corrective manoeuvres, if needed, and correct placement in the hypopharynx and possess additional features which permit insertion of a gastric tube and endotracheal intubation should the need arise. This article describes the two new devices' physical characteristics, features, rationale for use, advantages and limitations in comparison to existing devices. Each of the two new devices-the Video Laryngeal Mask (VLMTM, UE Medical®) and the SafeLM® Video Laryngeal Mask System (SafeLMTM VLMS, Magill Medical Technology®) consist of two parts: (a) a disposable 2nd generation SAD with a silicone cuff and an anatomically curved tube; and (b) a reusable patient-isolated videoscope and monitoring screen, with the flexible scope located into a specially-designed, blind-end channel terminating in the bowl of the SAD, preventing the videoscope from contacting patient body fluids in the SAD bowl. Third generation placement-under-direct-vision supraglottic airway devices possess several theoretical safety and ease of use advantages which now need to be validated in clinical use.

The case for a 3rd generation supraglottic airway device facilitating direct vision placement.

Although 1st and 2nd generation supraglottic airway devices (SADs) have many desirable features, they are nevertheless inserted in a similar 'blind' way as their 1st generation predecessors. Clinicians mostly still rely entirely on subjective indirect assessments to estimate correct placement which supposedly ensures a tight seal. Malpositioning and potential airway compromise occurs in more than half of placements. Vision-guided insertion can improve placement. In this article we propose the development of a 3rd generation supraglottic airway device, equipped with cameras and fiberoptic illumination, to visualise insertion of the device, enable immediate manoeuvres to optimise SAD position, verify whether correct 1st and 2nd seals are achieved and check whether size selected is appropriate. We do not provide technical details of such a '3rd generation' device, but rather present a theoretical analysis of its desirable properties, which are essential to overcome the remaining limitations of current 1st and 2nd generation devices. We also recommend that this further milestone improvement, i.e. ability to place the SAD accurately under direct vision, be eligible for the moniker '3rd generation'. Blind insertion of SADs should become the exception and we anticipate, as in other domains such as central venous cannulation and nerve block insertions, vision-guided placement becoming the gold standard.

Measuring endotracheal tube intracuff pressure: no room for complacency.

Tracheal intubation constitutes a routine part in the care of critically ill and anaesthetised patients. Prolonged use of endotracheal with inflated cuff is one of the major multifactorial causes of complications. Both under-inflation and over-inflation of cuff are associated with complications. Despite known problems, regular measurement of cuff pressure is not routine, and it is performed on an ad hoc basis.

Time to consider supraglottic airway device oropharyngeal leak pressure measurement more objectively.

Oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) is considered a measure of successful placement, adequate performance and is a useful comparator between supraglottic airway devices (SADs). OLP measurement is based on the premise that the SAD is sited properly in the hypopharynx after blind placements, but the evidence suggests otherwise. Several limitations and controversies surround OLP. This editorial addresses the uses and pitfalls of OLP, the rationale for and methods of ascertaining OLP, the pros and cons of OLP measurement and newer modalities to improve its accuracy.

A randomized comparison between intravenous and perineural dexamethasone for ultrasound-guided axillary block.

BACKGROUND: This randomized double-blinded trial compared the effect of intravenous and perineural dexamethasone (8 mg) on the duration of motor block for ultrasound (US)-guided axillary brachial plexus block (AXB). METHODS: Patients undergoing upper limb surgery with US-guided AXB were randomly allocated to receive preservative-free dexamethasone (8 mg) via intravenous (n = 75) or perineural (n = 75) administration. The local anesthetic agent, 1% lidocaine -0.25% bupivacaine (30 mL) with epinephrine 5 µg·mL-1, was identical in all subjects. Operators and patients were blinded to the nature of the intravenous and perineural injectate. A blinded observer assessed the block success rate (i.e., a minimal sensorimotor composite score of 14 out of 16 points at 30 min), block onset time, as well as the presence of surgical anesthesia. Postoperatively, the blinded observer contacted all patients with successful blocks to record the duration of motor block (primary outcome), sensory block, and postoperative analgesia. RESULTS: No intergroup differences were observed in terms of success rate, surgical anesthesia, and block onset time. Compared to intravenous administration, perineural dexamethasone provided longer mean (SD) durations for motor block [17.5 (4.6) hr vs 12.8 (4.5) hr; mean difference, 4.6 hr; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.21 to -3.08; P < 0.001], sensory block [17.7 (5.1) hr vs 13.7 (5.0) hr; mean difference, 4.0 hr; 95% CI, -5.77 to -2.27; P < 0.001], and postoperative analgesia [21.1 (4.6) hr vs 17.1 (4.6) hr; mean difference, 4.0 hr; 95% CI, -5.70 to -2.30; P < 0.001]. CONCLUSION: Compared to intravenous dosing, perineural dexamethasone (8 mg) results in longer durations of sensorimotor block and postoperative analgesia for ultrasound-guided axillary block. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT02629835.

Do mask aperture bars of extraglottic airway devices prevent prolapse of epiglottis causing airway obstruction? A randomized crossover trial in anesthetized adult patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The study objective is to determine whether extraglottic airway devices (EADs) with or without mask aperture bars (MABs) result in similar anatomical positions in patients undergoing surgery. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, crossover comparison of four extraglottic airway devices. SETTING: Operating theatre at a large teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Eighty consenting patients scheduled to undergo surgery with general anesthesia. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly allocated to receive anesthesia with one of four tested EADs. Two versions of each EAD were inserted in random order; one with and one without MABs. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Endoscopic evaluation did not demonstrate any difference between the EADs with or without MABs. Contact between MABs and arytenoids (n=15) and herniation of arytenoids (n=7) was restricted to the Cobra-group patients. In nine patients the epiglottis made contact with a MAB, although this contact was very limited and often unilateral. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that the anatomical position of the four tested single-use EADs is similar with or without mask aperture bars. We therefore question whether MABs have a protective role in prevention of airway occlusion and whether MABs are essential components. In the overall majority of EADs with MABs, the latter did not prevent contact with the epiglottis. Contact and herniation of the laryngeal structures are seen more frequently when more than two MABs are present.

Primary Failure of Thoracic Epidural Analgesia in Training Centers: The Invisible Elephant?

In teaching centers, primary failure of thoracic epidural analgesia can be due to multiple etiologies. In addition to the difficult anatomy of the thoracic spine, the conventional end point-loss-of-resistance-lacks specificity. Furthermore, insufficient training compounds the problem: learning curves are nonexistent, pedagogical requirements are often inadequate, supervisors may be inexperienced, and exposure during residency is decreasing. Any viable solution needs to be multifaceted. Learning curves should be explored to determine the minimal number of blocks required for proficiency. The problem of decreasing caseload can be tackled with epidural simulators to supplement in vivo learning. From a technical standpoint, fluoroscopy and ultrasonography could be used to navigate the complex anatomy of the thoracic spine. Finally, correct identification of the thoracic epidural space should be confirmed with objective, real-time modalities such as neurostimulation and waveform analysis.

A Multicenter Randomized Comparison Between Intravenous and Perineural Dexamethasone for Ultrasound-Guided Infraclavicular Block.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This multicenter, randomized trial compared intravenous (IV) and perineural (PN) dexamethasone for ultrasound (US)-guided infraclavicular brachial plexus block. Our research hypothesis was both modalities would result in similar durations of motor block. METHODS: One hundred fifty patients undergoing upper limb surgery with US-guided infraclavicular block were randomly allocated to receive IV or PN dexamethasone (5 mg). The local anesthetic agent (35 mL of lidocaine 1%-bupivacaine 0.25% with epinephrine 5 µg/mL) was identical in all subjects. Patients and operators were blinded to the nature of IV and PN injectates. During the performance of the block, the performance time, number of needle passes, procedural pain, and complications (vascular puncture, paresthesia) were recorded.Subsequently, a blinded observer assessed the success rate (defined as a minimal sensorimotor composite score of 14 of 16 points at 30 minutes), onset time as well as the incidence of surgical anesthesia (defined as the ability to complete surgery without local infiltration, supplemental blocks, IV opioids, or general anesthesia). Postoperatively (at 24 hours), the blinded observer contacted patients with successful blocks to enquire about the duration of motor block, sensory block, and postoperative analgesia. The main outcome variable was the duration of motor block. RESULTS: No intergroup differences were observed in terms of technical execution (performance time/number of needle passes/procedural pain/complications), onset time, success rate, and surgical anesthesia. However, compared to its IV counterpart, PN dexamethasone provided 19% to 22% longer durations for motor block (15.7 ± 6.2 vs 12.9 ± 5.5 hours; P = 0.009), sensory block (16.8 ± 4.4 vs 13.9 ± 5.4 hours; P = 0.002), and postoperative analgesia (22.1 ± 8.5 vs 18.6 ± 6.7 hours; P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with its IV counterpart, PN dexamethasone (5 mg) provides a longer duration of motor block, sensory block, and postoperative analgesia for US-guided infraclavicular block. Future dose-finding studies are required to elucidate the optimal dose of dexamethasone.

A Randomized Comparison Between Conventional and Waveform-Confirmed Loss of Resistance for Thoracic Epidural Blocks.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Epidural waveform analysis (EWA) provides a simple confirmatory adjunct for loss of resistance (LOR): when the needle tip is correctly positioned inside the epidural space, pressure measurement results in a pulsatile waveform. In this randomized trial, we compared conventional and EWA-confirmed LOR in 2 teaching centers. Our research hypothesis was that EWA-confirmed LOR would decrease the failure rate of thoracic epidural blocks. METHODS: One hundred patients undergoing thoracic epidural blocks for thoracic surgery, abdominal surgery, or rib fractures were randomized to conventional LOR or EWA-LOR. The operator was allowed as many attempts as necessary to achieve a satisfactory LOR (by feel) in the conventional group. In the EWA-LOR group, LOR was confirmed by connecting the epidural needle to a pressure transducer using a rigid extension tubing. Positive waveforms indicated that the needle tip was positioned inside the epidural space. The operator was allowed a maximum of 3 different intervertebral levels to obtain a positive waveform. If waveforms were still absent at the third level, the operator simply accepted LOR as the technical end point. However, the patient was retained in the EWA-LOR group (intent-to-treat analysis).After achieving a satisfactory tactile LOR (conventional group), positive waveforms (EWA-LOR group), or a third intervertebral level with LOR but no waveform (EWA-LOR group), the operator administered a 4-mL test dose of lidocaine 2% with epinephrine 5 µg/mL. Fifteen minutes after the test dose, a blinded investigator assessed the patient for sensory block to ice. RESULTS: Compared with LOR, EWA-LOR resulted in a lower rate of primary failure (2% vs 24%; P = 0.002). Subgroup analysis based on experience level reveals that EWA-LOR outperformed conventional LOR for novice (P = 0.001) but not expert operators. The performance time was longer in the EWA-LOR group (11.2 ± 6.2 vs 8.0 ± 4.6 minutes; P = 0.006). Both groups were comparable in terms of operator's level of expertise, depth of the epidural space, approach, and LOR medium. In the EWA-LOR group, operators obtained a pulsatile waveform with the first level attempted in 60% of patients. However, 40% of subjects required performance at a second or third level. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with its conventional counterpart, EWA-confirmed LOR results in a lower failure rate for thoracic epidural blocks (2% vs 24%) in our teaching centers. Confirmatory EWA provides significant benefits for inexperienced operators.

Efficacy of the New Perilaryngeal Airway (CobraPLA™) Versus the Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA™) to Improve Oropharyngeal Leak Pressure in Obese and Overweight Patients.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the applicability of Cobra perilaryngeal airway (Cobra PLA™) for obese patients under general anesthesia and also to compare the results with those of classic laryngeal mask airway (LMA™). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-three overweight and obese patients were included in this study. The patients were randomly assigned to LMA™ or Cobra PLA™ groups. Time required for intubation, successful intubation attempt, airway sealing pressure and incidence of complications including blood staining, sore throat and dysphagia were assessed and noted. RESULTS: Thirty-six and 37 patients were randomly allocated to LMA™ and Cobra PLA™ groups, respectively. Most patients were males and had Mallampati Class II airway in both groups. The first attempt and overall insertion success for Cobra PLA™ was significantly higher compared to LMA (P<0.05). Airway insertion was more successful (P = 0.027; 94% vs. 77%) with Cobra PLA™. Insertion times were similar with Cobra PLA™ and LMA™ (Cobra PLA™, 29.94±16.35s; LMA™, 27.00±7.88s). The oropharyngeal leak pressure in the Cobra PLA™ group (24.80±0.90 H2O) was significantly higher than that in LMA™ group (19±1 H2O, p<0.001). Sore throat was more frequent in the LMA™ group although it did not reach statistical significance (Fisher's exact test, P = 0.33). Blood staining on airway tube was seen in both groups with a higher incidence in the Cobra PLA™ group (Fisher's Exact test, P = 0.02). Incidence of dysphagia was not different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: CobraPLA™ was found to be safe with low complications. It provided better airway sealing with high rate of the first insertion success for use in obese and overweight patients. This study recommends the use of CobraPLA™ as a rescue device in emergency situations for obese and overweight patients.

Theoretical effect of hyperventilation on speed of recovery and risk of rehypnotization following recovery - a GasMan® simulation.

BACKGROUND: Hyperventilation may be used to hasten recovery from general anesthesia with potent inhaled anesthetics. However, its effect may be less pronounced with the newer, less soluble agents, and it may result in rehypnotization if subsequent hypoventilation occurs because more residual anesthetic will be available in the body for redistribution to the central nervous system. We used GasMan® simulations to examine these issues. METHODS: One MAC of isoflurane, sevoflurane, or desflurane was administered to a fictitious 70 kg patient for 8 h with normoventilation (alveolar minute ventilation [VA] 5 L.min-1), resulting in full saturation of the vessel rich group (VRG) and >95% saturation of the muscle group. After 8 h, agent administration was stopped, and fresh gas flow was increased to 10 L.min-1 to avoid rebreathing. At that same time, we continued with one simulation where normoventilation was maintained, while in a second simulation hyperventilation was instituted (10 L.min-1). We determined the time needed for the partial pressure in the VRG (FVRG; representing the central nervous system) to reach 0.3 MAC (MACawake). After reaching MACawake in the VRG, several degrees of hypoventilation were instituted (VA of 2.5, 1.5, 1, and 0.5 L.min-1) to determine whether FVRG would increase above 0.3 MAC(= rehypnotization). RESULTS: Time to reach 0.3 MAC in the VRG with normoventilation was 14 min 42 s with isoflurane, 9 min 12 s with sevoflurane, and 6 min 12 s with desflurane. Hyperventilation reduced these recovery times by 30, 18, and 13% for isoflurane, sevoflurane, and desflurane, respectively. Rehypnotization was observed with VA of 0.5 L.min-1 with desflurane, 0.5 and 1 L.min-1 with sevoflurane, and 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2.5 L.min-1 with isoflurane. Only with isoflurane did initial hyperventilation slightly increase the risk of rehypnotization. CONCLUSIONS: These GasMan® simulations confirm that the use of hyperventilation to hasten recovery is marginally beneficial with the newer, less soluble agents. In addition, subsequent hypoventilation results in rehypnotization only with more soluble agents, unless hypoventilation is severe. Also, initial hyperventilation does not increase the risk of rehypnotization with less soluble agents when subsequent hypoventilation occurs. Well-controlled clinical studies are required to validate these simulations.