Benjamin P Caughlin ,Bharat Bhushan *,John Maddalozzo
Introduction: Closed reduction nasal fracture is a common and well established procedure in the otolaryngology literature. The Laryngeal mask airway (LMA) is being used more frequently for otolaryngologic procedures in recent years because it has been proven safe for select procedures especially in the pediatric population. The frequency of closed reduction nasal fracture repair and the increased propensity to use LMA anesthesia for otolaryngologic cases warrants investigation.
Objective: We sought to investigate the benefits, risks and safety of using LMA anesthesia for pediatric patients during closed reduction nasal fracture compared to case controlled equivalents that underwent ETT intubation.
Methods: We performed a retrospective case-control study in which all cases of closed reduction nasal fracture at a single pediatric institution by a single surgeon were studied. This included patients from 2007 to 2013 at Ann & Robert H Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago. The primary outcomes assessed were postoperative VAS and FACES pain scores, blood loss, cough, stridor and aspiration. Secondary outcomes assessed included timing data to determine if one technique led to greater optimization of operating room (OR) time and/or total hospital stay. The timing data included overall OR duration, prep to cut time, cut to close time, non-operative OR time and the total hospital stay in minutes. Results: Fifty patients met the inclusion criteria. Of the 50 patients included an endotracheal tube was used in 16 patients and a LMA was used for 34 patients. Two of the LMA group 2/34 (6%) had aspiration documented compared to zero of the ETT group. The average total length of hospital stay was 268.5 m when both groups were included. The average total hospital stay was 252.6 minutes for the LMA group and 312.4 for ETT group. The average postoperative VAS pain score, as documented 0-10 by the RN, was 0.47 for the LMA group as opposed to 0.56 for the ETT group. A total of 24 patients had cough noted, 15/34 (44%) of the LMA group and 9/16 (56%) of the ETT group. Ten patients had stridor noted, 5/34 (15%) of the LMA group and 5/16 (31%) of ETT group.
Conclusion: These results support the hypothesis that using an LMA versus an ETT for short procedures does save time when assessing overall hospital stay. Additional benefits of the LMA are reduced cough, pain, stridor and ease of placement. The data also supports our second hypothesis that using an LMA for close reduction nasal fracture can lead to more frequent post operative airway obstruction when compared to the ETT. Our data and review suggest that it is the combination of deep extubation (lack of airway protection) and the use of an LMA (allows for blood accumulation) that result in the increase risks of airway obstruction postoperatively. For operations in the pediatric population with a significant risk of bleeding into the pharynx we recommend using an ETT due to the risks of aspiration. If an LMA is used we recommend to only removing the LMA after the patient has been deemed in the state of anesthesia which is awake. For short cases with a low risk of immediate post operative bleeding into the pharynx, we are proponents of the LMA due to its’ time saving effect.
