CJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a scholarly reply
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Samarkandi, A. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Samarkandi, A. H.

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, Vol 45, 150-152, Copyright © 1998 by Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society

ARTICLES

Awake removal of the laryngeal mask airway is safe in paediatric patients

AH Samarkandi
Department of Anaesthesia, King Saud University, Faculty of Medicine, King Khalid University Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

PURPOSE: It has been suggested that it is safer to remove the Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) in paediatric patients when they are deeply anaesthetised than when they are awake. However, the evidence regarding this recommendation is contradictory. The purpose of the study was to compare the incidence of complications (laryngeal spasm, bronchospasm, coughing, retching, excessive salivation and oxygen desaturation) associated with removal of the LMA in children. METHODS: In a randomised study, we studied 165 ASA physical status I infants and children of both sexes, aged 2 mo to 13 yr. All patients were undergoing elective lower limb or perineal surgery. They were randomly assigned to two groups: in 83 the laryngeal mask was removed when recovery of airway reflexes had been demonstrated and the patients had opened their eyes or mouth in the recovery area. In the other 82 patients it was removed with the patient deeply anaesthetised. RESULTS: Two (2.4%) patients developed laryngeal spasm in the anaesthetised group, one patient (1.2%) desaturated and another vomited (1.2%) in the awake group. CONCLUSION: There was no difference in the incidence of airway complications whether the LMA was removed in the anaesthetised or the awake child.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
J. Lee, J. Kim, S. Kim, C. Kim, T. Yoon, and H. Kim
Removal of the laryngeal tube in children: anaesthetized compared with awake
Br. J. Anaesth., June 1, 2007; 98(6): 802 - 805.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
Y. H. Shim, C. S. Shin, C. H. Chang, and Y.-S. Shin
Optimal End-Tidal Sevoflurane Concentration for the Removal of the Laryngeal Mask Airway in Anesthetized Adults
Anesth. Analg., October 1, 2005; 101(4): 1034 - 1037.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Canadian J. AnesthesiaHome page
M. Harnett, B. Kinirons, A. Heffernan, C. Motherway, and W. Casey
Airway complications in infants: comparison of laryngeal mask airway and the facemask-oral airway
Can J Anesth, April 1, 2000; 47(4): 315 - 318.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1998 by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.