Laryngeal mask airway versus endotracheal tube for outpatient surgery: analysis of anesthesia-controlled time

Abstract

Study objective: To show that efficiency of operating room times can be improved significantly using rapid changes between operative procedures.

Design: Randomized, prospective clinical study.

Setting: Tertiary care university hospital, elective peripheral trauma-related orthopedic surgery.

Patients: 72 adult, ASA physical status I, II, and III patients scheduled for elective peripheral trauma-related orthopedic surgery requiring general anesthesia.

Interventions: Patient airways were managed using either a Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) or an endotracheal tube (ETT) in the hands of anesthesiologists experienced in both. They were not informed as to the primary intention of the study. All perioperative data, including the preoperative and postoperative outpatient stay at the outpatient surgical ward, were recorded with an anesthesia information management system.

Measurements: The primary outcome measures were: time needed for anesthesia induction and emergence from anesthesia. All manual recording into the anesthesia information management system during anesthesia was accomplished by nurses who were uninformed as to the aim of the study.

Main results: Anesthesia induction was significantly (p < 0.01) shorter using LMAs (means +/- SD, medians, [interquartile ranges]) (LMA: 5.8 +/- 1.5, 5, [5;7] vs. ETT: 7.4 +/- 1.8, 7, [7;8] min), whereas emergence from anesthesia was not different (LMA: 11.8 +/- 3.3, 11, [9;14] vs. ETT: 13.2 +/- 4.8; 12, [10;16] min).

Conclusion: The clinical relevance of reduced anesthesia induction time using LMA is questionable. The lack of difference in emergence time could be a result of the use of total intravenous anesthesia.