Airway Complications in Intubated Versus Laryngeal Mask Airway-Managed Dentistry: A Meta-Analysis.

Q3 Medicine Anesthesia progress Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI:10.2344/anpr-68-04-02
Jordan Prince, Cameron Goertzen, Maryam Zanjir, Michelle Wong, Amir Azarpazhooh
{"title":"Airway Complications in Intubated Versus Laryngeal Mask Airway-Managed Dentistry: A Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Jordan Prince,&nbsp;Cameron Goertzen,&nbsp;Maryam Zanjir,&nbsp;Michelle Wong,&nbsp;Amir Azarpazhooh","doi":"10.2344/anpr-68-04-02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Serious airway complications can occur with inadequate airway management during general anesthesia (GA). This meta-analysis investigated randomized controlled trials that compared perioperative technique failures and airway complications, including hypoxia, during GA for dentistry using endotracheal intubation or a laryngeal mask airway (LMA) for airway management.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of electronic databases and gray literature was completed. Independent reviewers assessed eligibility, performed data extraction, completed risk of bias assessment, and judged the quality of results through Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Risk ratios (RRs) for airway complications, with 95% CIs, were calculated. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic. Sensitivity and age-subgroup analyses were explored.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six trials were deemed eligible from a total of 9076 identified reports. The airway management intervention for these trials was LMA. Technique failures or effect differences in airway complications were not detected except for postoperative hypoxia, where LMA use had a decreased risk (RR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.06-0.77; I2 = 0%; moderate quality). A similar effect was seen in the pediatric analysis (RR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.01-0.84; I2 = 0%; moderate quality). Additionally, LMA use reduced pediatric sore throat risk (RR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.04-0.15; I2 = 0%; moderate quality).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Use of an LMA in dentistry may have the potential to reduce the risk of postoperative hypoxia, particularly in pediatric patients, although further study is required.</p>","PeriodicalId":7818,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia progress","volume":"68 4","pages":"193-205"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8674849/pdf/i0003-3006-68-4-193.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia progress","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2344/anpr-68-04-02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objective: Serious airway complications can occur with inadequate airway management during general anesthesia (GA). This meta-analysis investigated randomized controlled trials that compared perioperative technique failures and airway complications, including hypoxia, during GA for dentistry using endotracheal intubation or a laryngeal mask airway (LMA) for airway management.

Methods: A systematic search of electronic databases and gray literature was completed. Independent reviewers assessed eligibility, performed data extraction, completed risk of bias assessment, and judged the quality of results through Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Risk ratios (RRs) for airway complications, with 95% CIs, were calculated. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic. Sensitivity and age-subgroup analyses were explored.

Results: Six trials were deemed eligible from a total of 9076 identified reports. The airway management intervention for these trials was LMA. Technique failures or effect differences in airway complications were not detected except for postoperative hypoxia, where LMA use had a decreased risk (RR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.06-0.77; I2 = 0%; moderate quality). A similar effect was seen in the pediatric analysis (RR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.01-0.84; I2 = 0%; moderate quality). Additionally, LMA use reduced pediatric sore throat risk (RR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.04-0.15; I2 = 0%; moderate quality).

Conclusion: Use of an LMA in dentistry may have the potential to reduce the risk of postoperative hypoxia, particularly in pediatric patients, although further study is required.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
气管插管与喉罩气道管理牙科的气道并发症:荟萃分析。
目的:全身麻醉(GA)过程中气道管理不当可导致严重的气道并发症。本荟萃分析调查了随机对照试验,比较了牙科GA患者使用气管内插管或喉罩气道(LMA)进行气道管理时围手术期技术失败和气道并发症(包括缺氧)。方法:系统检索电子数据库和灰色文献。独立审稿人评估资格,进行数据提取,完成偏倚风险评估,并通过分级推荐、评估、发展和评估来判断结果的质量。计算气道并发症的风险比(rr), ci为95%。异质性采用I2统计量进行量化。敏感性和年龄亚组分析进行了探讨。结果:从9076份确定的报告中,有6项试验被认为符合条件。这些试验的气道管理干预是LMA。除术后缺氧外,未发现气道并发症的技术失败或效果差异,使用LMA的风险降低(RR, 0.22;95% ci, 0.06-0.77;I2 = 0%;温和的质量)。在儿科分析中也发现了类似的效果(RR, 0.10;95% ci, 0.01-0.84;I2 = 0%;温和的质量)。此外,LMA的使用降低了儿童喉咙痛的风险(RR, 0.08;95% ci, 0.04-0.15;I2 = 0%;温和的质量)。结论:在牙科中使用LMA可能具有降低术后缺氧风险的潜力,特别是在儿科患者中,尽管需要进一步的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Anesthesia progress
Anesthesia progress Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Anesthesia Progress is a peer-reviewed journal and the official publication of the American Dental Society of Anesthesiology. The journal is dedicated to providing a better understanding of the advances being made in the art and science of pain and anxiety control in dentistry.
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of Sedation Levels Using SedLine During Intravenous Sedation for Dental Procedures: A Case-Series Study. Cardiac Arrest Due to Pacing Failure From Pilsicainide Poisoning. A New Dental Specialty in Canada. Literature Review for Office-Based Anesthesia. Hypotension Without Skin Symptoms at Local Anesthesia in Dental Treatment: Anaphylaxis? Or Vasovagal Reaction?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1