International Journal of Medical and All Body Health Research  |  e-ISSN: 2582-8940  |  Double-Blind Peer Review  |  Open Access  |  CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Current Issues
     2026:7/4

International Journal of Medical and All Body Health Research

e-ISSN: 2582-8940 | Open Access

Evaluation of Different Pre-operative Bedside Airway Assessment Tests to Determine Ease of Insertion of ProSeal LMA: A Prospective Observational Study

Dr. Zubin, Dr. Shailja Sharma, Dr. Sharad Goel, Dr. Keshav Dev Jagar, Dr. Nikhil Vaid

Post Graduate Resident, Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Saraswathi Institute of Medical Sciences, Pilkhuwa, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh, India; Professor and HOD, Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Saraswathi Institute of Medical Sciences, Pilkhuwa, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh, India; Professor, Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Saraswathi Institute of Medical Sciences, Pilkhuwa, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh, India; Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Saraswathi Institute of Medical Sciences, Pilkhuwa, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh, India; Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Saraswathi Institute of Medical Sciences, Pilkhuwa, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh, India

Article Information

Volume / Issue6 / 3 (July-September 2025)
Pages147-154
AccessOpen Access

Publication Timeline

  • Received20 June 2025
  • Accepted22 July 2025
  • Published

Full Text (PDF)

Open Access - Free to Download

Download Full Article (PDF) JATS XML

Abstract

The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) has become an essential supraglottic airway device in modern anesthetic practice, yet predicting insertion difficulty remains a clinical challenge that can impact patient safety and operating room efficiency. This prospective observational study aimed to evaluate the predictive accuracy of various pre-operative bedside airway assessment tests for determining ease of PLMA insertion in adult patients undergoing elective surgery. A total of 280 patients aged 18-70 years, ASA physical status I-III, scheduled for elective procedures under general anesthesia with planned PLMA insertion were enrolled between January 2022 and December 2023. Pre-operative airway assessment included systematic evaluation of Mallampati classification, thyromental distance, sternomental distance, mouth opening, neck circumference, upper lip bite test, neck extension, and mandibular protrusion test. The primary outcome was ease of PLMA insertion categorized as easy (successful insertion within first 2 attempts), moderately difficult (3-4 attempts), or difficult (>4 attempts or failure requiring alternative airway). Secondary outcomes included insertion time, seal pressure, and complications. Easy insertion was achieved in 198 patients (70.7%), moderately difficult in 58 patients (20.7%), and difficult insertion in 24 patients (8.6%). Multivariate analysis identified Mallampati class III-IV (OR 5.2, 95% CI: 2.8-9.7, p<0.001), thyromental distance <6.5 cm (OR 4.1, 95% CI: 2.2-7.6, p<0.001), mouth opening <4 cm (OR 3.4, 95% CI: 1.8-6.4, p<0.01), neck circumference >42 cm (OR 2.8, 95% CI: 1.5-5.2, p<0.01), and upper lip bite test class III (OR 3.7, 95% CI: 1.9-7.1, p<0.001) as independent predictors of difficult insertion. A composite scoring system incorporating these five parameters achieved 84.2% sensitivity and 91.3% specificity for predicting difficult PLMA insertion, with area under the curve of 0.93. Multiple pre-operative bedside airway assessment tests can effectively predict PLMA insertion difficulty, with the strongest predictors being Mallampati classification, thyromental distance, and mouth opening. The developed composite scoring system provides a practical clinical tool for risk stratification, enabling anesthesiologists to anticipate insertion challenges and optimize perioperative airway management strategies.

Keywords

Proseal LMAAirway AssessmentPredictive TestsMallampati ClassificationThyromental DistanceSupraglottic AirwayInsertion DifficultyBedside Evaluation

References

  1. Brain AI, Verghese C, Strube PJ. The LMA 'ProSeal'--a laryngeal mask with an oesophageal vent. Br J Anaesth. 2000;84(5):650-654. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  2. Cook TM, Nolan JP, Verghese C, et al. Randomized crossover comparison of the ProSeal with the Classic laryngeal mask airway in unparalysed anaesthetized patients. Br J Anaesth. 2002;88(4):527-533. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  3. Eschertzhuber S, Brimacombe J, Hohlrieder M, et al. The laryngeal mask airway Supreme versus the laryngeal mask airway ProSeal: a randomized controlled trial in paralyzed, anesthetized adult patients. Anesth Analg. 2009;109(6):1965-1971. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  4. Ramachandran SK, Mathis MR, Tremper KK, et al. Predictors and clinical outcomes from failed Laryngeal Mask Airway Unique™: a study of 15,795 patients. Anesthesiology. 2012;116(6):1217-1226. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  5. Mallampati SR, Gatt SP, Gugino LD, et al. A clinical sign to predict difficult tracheal intubation: a prospective study. Can Anaesth Soc J. 1985;32(4):429-434. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  6. Brimacombe J, Keller C, Berry A. Gastric insufflation with the ProSeal versus Classic laryngeal mask airway. Anesth Analg. 2002;94(6):1604-1606. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  7. Samsoon GL, Young JR. Difficult tracheal intubation: a retrospective study. Anaesthesia. 1987;42(5):487-490. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  8. Lee A, Fan LT, Gin T, et al. A systematic review (meta-analysis) of the accuracy of the Mallampati tests to predict the difficult airway. Anesth Analg. 2006;102(6):1867-1878. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  9. Patil VU, Stehling LC, Zauder HL. Predicting the difficulty of intubation utilizing an intubation gauge. Anesthesiol Rev. 1983;10:32-33. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  10. Schmitt HJ, Kirmse M, Radespiel-Troger M. Ratio of patient's height to thyromental distance improves prediction of difficult laryngoscopy. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2002;30(6):763-765. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  11. Calder I, Calder J, Crockard HA. Difficult direct laryngoscopy in patients with cervical spine disease. Anaesthesia. 1995;50(9):756-763. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  12. Cattano D, Panicucci E, Paolicchi A, et al. Risk factors assessment of the difficult airway: an italian survey of 1956 patients. Anesth Analg. 2004;99(6):1774-1779. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  13. Brodsky JB, Lemmens HJ, Brock-Utne JG, et al. Morbid obesity and tracheal intubation. Anesth Analg. 2002;94(3):732-736. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  14. Ezri T, Gewurtz G, Sessler DI, et al. Prediction of difficult laryngoscopy in obese patients by ultrasound quantification of anterior neck soft tissue. Anaesthesia. 2003;58(11):1111-1114. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  15. Khan ZH, Kashfi A, Ebrahimkhani E. A comparison of the upper lip bite test (a simple new technique) with modified Mallampati classification in predicting difficulty in endotracheal intubation: a prospective blinded study. Anesth Analg. 2003;96(2):595-599. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  16. Hester CE, Dietrich SA, White SW, et al. A comparison of preoperative airway assessment techniques: the modified Mallampati and the upper lip bite test. AANA J. 2007;75(3):177-182. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  17. Brimacombe J, Keller C. The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: a randomized, crossover study with the standard laryngeal mask airway in paralyzed, anesthetized patients. Anesthesiology. 2000;93(1):104-109. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  18. Practice guidelines for management of the difficult airway: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. Anesthesiology. 2013;118(2):251-270. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  19. Frerk C, Mitchell VS, McNarry AF, et al. Difficult Airway Society 2015 guidelines for management of unanticipated difficult intubation in adults. Br J Anaesth. 2015;115(6):827-848. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  20. Cook TM, Woodall N, Harper J, et al. Major complications of airway management in the UK: results of the Fourth National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Difficult Airway Society. Part 1: anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106(5):617-631. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  21. Peterson GN, Domino KB, Caplan RA, et al. Management of the difficult airway: a closed claims analysis. Anesthesiology. 2005;103(1):33-39. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
  22. Cattano D, Killoran PV, Cai C, et al. Difficult mask ventilation in general surgical population: observation of risk factors and predictors. F1000Res. 2014;3:204. [Google Scholar][Crossref]

How to Cite

Zubin, Sharma, S., Goel, S., Jagar, K. D., & Vaid, N. (2025). Evaluation of Different Pre-operative Bedside Airway Assessment Tests to Determine Ease of Insertion of ProSeal LMA: A Prospective Observational Study. International Journal of Medical and All Body Health Research, 6(3), 147-154. https://doi.org/10.54660/IJMBHR.2025.6.3.147-154

Zubin, et al. "Evaluation of Different Pre-operative Bedside Airway Assessment Tests to Determine Ease of Insertion of ProSeal LMA: A Prospective Observational Study." International Journal of Medical and All Body Health Research, vol. 6, no. 3, 2025, pp. 147-154. https://doi.org/10.54660/IJMBHR.2025.6.3.147-154.

Zubin, Sharma, S., Goel, S., Jagar, K. D. and Vaid, N. (2025) 'Evaluation of Different Pre-operative Bedside Airway Assessment Tests to Determine Ease of Insertion of ProSeal LMA: A Prospective Observational Study', International Journal of Medical and All Body Health Research, 6(3), pp. 147-154. doi: 10.54660/IJMBHR.2025.6.3.147-154.

Zubin, Sharma S, Goel S, Jagar KD, Vaid N. Evaluation of Different Pre-operative Bedside Airway Assessment Tests to Determine Ease of Insertion of ProSeal LMA: A Prospective Observational Study. International Journal of Medical and All Body Health Research. 2025;6(3):147-154. doi:10.54660/IJMBHR.2025.6.3.147-154

Similar Articles

Share

Find this Article on

Google Scholar Semantic Scholar OpenAlex Scilit Crossref ResearchGate BASE

A newly published article may take a few days to appear on these services.