Alonso-Mercado A, Moyao-García D, Cruz-Villaseñor JA, Olivares-Mendoza H, Rodríguez-Valencia F, Suárez-Nadal JE

Language: Spanish
References: 10
Page: 166-171
PDF size: 160.54 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare the airway patency of three different head-and-neck positions in children whom underwent to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Material and methods: Twenty-one children scheduled to MRI were randomly assigned to either group: 1) sniffing position or 2) simple head extension. In a head neutral position, a basal image was taken. Antero-posterior and transverse diameters were measured on sniffing and simple head extension positions. Airway area was calculated arithmetically. Descriptive statistical analysis was used. Parametric tests were used for dependent variables. A p ‹ 0.05 was considered statistically significative. Results: In the simple head extension group, the airway average area was 53.47 ± 25.36 mm², compared to the neutral position basal measure: 59.51 ± 23.81 mm² (p = 0.29). In the sniff position group, the airway average area was 74.27 ± 43.84 mm², compared to the neutral position basal measure: 70.21 ± 30.20 mm² (p = 0.401). There were not significative differences in the calculated area among the groups. Conclusion: In pediatric patients who have undergone MRI with sedation and spontaneous ventilation, there were not significative statistical differences when comparing three airway patency maneouvers. Clinically, airway obstruction was absent.

REFERENCES

1. Tobin JR, Spurrier EA, Wetzel RC. Anaesthesia for critically ill children during magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Anaesth 1992;69:482-486.

2. Reber A, Stephan G, Schnabel K, Bongartz G, Frei FJ. Effect of combined mouth closure and chin lift on upper airway dimensions during routine magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric patients sedated with propofol. Anesthesiology 1999;90:1617-1623.

3. Evans RG, Crawford MW, Noseworthy MD, Yoo SJ. Effect of increasing depth of propofol anesthesia on upper airway configuration in children. Anesthesiology 2003;99:596-602.

4. Litman RS, Weissend EE, Shrier DA, Ward D. Morphologic changes in the upper airway of children during awakening from propofol administration. Anesthesiology 2002;96:607-611.

5. Adnet F, Baillard C, Borron SW, Denantes C, Lefebvre L, Galinski M, Martínez C, Cupa M, Lapostolle, F. Randomized study comparing the «Sniffing Position» with simple head extension for laringoscopic view in elective patients. Anesthesiology 2001;95:836-841.

6. Adnet F, Borron SW, Lapostolle F, Lapandry C. The three axis alignment theory and the «Sniffing Position». Perpetuation of an anatomic myth»? Anesthesiology 1999;91:1964-65.

7. Benumof JL. Patient in «Sniffing Position». Anesthesiology 2000;93:1365-66.

8. Hirsch NP, Smith GB. Historical Perspective of the «Sniffing Position». Anesthesiology 2002;93:1366-7.

9. Adnet F, Borron SW, Dumas JL, Lapostolle F, Cupa M, Lapandry C. Study of the «Sniffing Position» by magnetic resonance imaging. Anesthesiology 2001;94:83-86.

10. Isono S, Tanaka A, Ishikawa T, Tagaito Y, Nishino T. Sniffing position improves pharyngeal airway patency in anesthetized patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Anesthesiology 2005;103:489-494.