Original Scientific Article
Usage of laryngeal mask airway devices in veterinary medicine
Petra Vidricková*,
Martin Boldižár

Mac Vet Rev 2020; 43 (2): i - ix

10.2478/macvetrev-2020-0020

Received: 17 February 2020

Received in revised form: 27 May 2020

Accepted: 28 May 2020

Available Online First: 07 September 2020

Published on: 15 October 2020

Correspondence: Petra Vidricková, vidrickova@gmail.com

Abstract

Providing a secure airway management during general anesthesia could be problematic in some medical cases, especially when there is a risk of regurgitation and aspiration of the gastric content due to increased intragastric pressure. The current study aimed to test the applicability of two types of LMA in several animal species and to compare its effectiveness to the endotracheal intubation method in securing sealed airway respiration as an alternative to using endotracheal tubes. The study was conducted in dogs (n=33), cats (n=9), swine (n=9), rabbits (n=5), sheep (n=7) and roe deer (n=1). One or both types of laryngeal masks were used for each animal species: LMA Classic™-cLMA and LMA ProSeal™-PLMA. The assessment of each laryngeal mask was performed by determining the insertion technique, the possibilities of first-attempt insertion and malposition, the compliance with various animal species, ventilation time, cuff pressure, and sealing capacity. The highest LMA size compatility in dogs (23,87±14,30 kg) was size-3 in six and size-4 in forteen subjects; In swine (43,22±12,32 kg), size-4; In rabbits (3,84±0,36 kg) size-1; and in sheep (48,29±4,65 kg) size-3 and size-4. Ventilation time was highest in swine and roe deer (121,11±42,85 min and 300,00 min, respectively) and lowest in cat (28,33±16,96 min). First-attempt LMA insertion success was lowest in rabbits (60%), and highest in sheep and roe deer (100%). Malposition was with highest rate in rabbits (40%) and lowest in cat, sheep and roe deer (0%). Gastric reflux was most frequently observed in sheep (71,4%) and roe deer (100%). The usage of LMA in the veterinary anesthetic practice significantly improves airway management in animals during general anesthesia. The inflated LMA cuff does not prevent its disposition. Therefore, both the drain and respiratory tubes must be fixed. The usage of LMA in rabbits was associated with higher incidence of malposition and other complications. Our findings suggest that LMA designed for humans can be used for airway management in veterinary medicine.

Keywords: laryngeal mask, supraglottic airway devices, gastric content aspiration, general anesthesia, veterinary medicine


References

  1. Sager, J. (2018). Supraglottic airway devices and tracheal tubes and stylets. In: K.G. Cooley, R.A. Johnson, Veterinary Anesthetic and Monitoring Equipment (pp. 177-178). Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119277187.ch14 PMid:29854387 PMCid:PMC5956637
  2. McNarry, A.F., Patel, A. (2017). The evolution of airway management - new concepts and conflicts with traditional practice. British Journal of Anaesthesia 119(1): 154-166. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aex385 PMid:29161401
  3. Fujita, M., Orima, H., Simazu, M., Motoyoshi, S., Katayama, M., Miyasaka, K. (1991). Use of laryngeal mask airway in small animals. J Vet Med Sci. 53(6): 1081-1082. https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.53.1081 PMid:1790220
  4. Brimacombe, J. (1995). The advantages of the LMA over the tracheal tube or facemask: a meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth. 42(11): 1017-1023. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03011075 PMid:8590490
  5. Wiederstein, I., Auer, U., Moens, Y. (2006). Laryngeal mask airway insertion requires less propofol than endotracheal intubation in dogs. Vet AnaesthAnalg. 33(4):201-206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2995.2005.00254.x PMid:16764583
  6. Kazakos, G.M., Anagnostou, T., Savvas, I., Raptopoulos, D., Psalla, D., Kazakou, I.M. (2007). Use of the laryngeal mask airway in rabbits: placement and efficacy. Lab Anim.36(4): 29-34. https://doi.org/10.1038/laban0407-29 PMid:17380146
  7. Reed, F., Iff I. (2012). Use of a laryngeal mask airway in a brachycephalic dog with masticatory myositis and trismus. Can Vet J. 53(3): 287-290.
  8. Brain, A.I.J., Verghese, C., Strube, P.J. (2000). The LMA 'ProSeal'-a laryngeal mask with an oesophageal vent. Br J Anaesth. 84(5): 650-654. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/84.5.650 PMid:10844848
  9. Brimacombe, J.R. (2005). Laryngeal mask anesthesia - principles and practice (p. 700). Edinburgh: Saunders.
  10. Wiederstein, I., Moens, Y.P. (2008). Guidelines and criteria for the placement of laryngeal mask airways in dogs. Vet Anaesth Analg. 35(5): 374-382. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2995.2008.00398.x PMid:18466166
  11. Asai, T., Murao, K., Katoh, T., Shingu, K. (1998). Use of the laryngeal mask airway in laboratory cats. Anesthesiology 88(6): 1680-1682. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-199806000-00037 PMid:9637667
  12. Wemyss-Holden, S.A., Porter, K.J., Baxter, P., Rudkin, G.E., Maddern, G.J. (1999). The laryngeal mask airway in experimental pig anaesthesia. Lab Anim. 33(1): 30-34. https://doi.org/10.1258/002367799780578480 PMid:10759389
  13. Fulkerson, P.J., Gustafson, S.B. (2007). Use of laryngeal mask airway compared to endotracheal tube with positive-pressure ventilation in anesthetized swine. Vet Anaesth Analg. 34(4): 284-288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2995.2006.00329.x PMid:17490468
  14. Rokamp, K.Z., Secher, N.H., Møller, A.M., Nielsen, H.B. (2010). Tracheal tube and laryngeal mask cuff pressure during anaesthesia - mandatory monitoring is in need. BMC Anesthesiol. 10, 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2253-10-20 PMid:21129183 PMCid:PMC3016349
  15. Goldmann, K., Kalinowski, M., Kraft, S. (2005). Airway management under general anaesthesia in pig using the LMA-ProSeal: a pilot study. Vet Anaesth Analg. 32(5): 308-313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2995.2005.00248.x PMid:16135212


Copyright

© 2020 Vidricková P. This is an open-access article published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Citation Information

Macedonian Veterinary Review. Volume 43, Issue 2, Pages i-ix, e-ISSN 1857-7415, p-ISSN 1409-7621, DOI: 10.2478/10.2478/macvetrev-2020-0020, 2020