Determination of the appropriate oropharyngeal airway size in adults: Assessment using ventilation and an endoscopic view.

Published

Journal Article

INTRODUCTION: Size 9 and 8 airways for men and women, respectively, have been proposed as most appropriate based on endoscopy. However, a limitation of this guideline is that ventilation was not assessed. METHODS: In this retrospective review of prospectively collected data, 149 patients requiring tracheal intubation for general anesthesia were included. The adequacy for manual and pressure-controlled mechanical ventilation and views at the distal end of each airway was assessed using a fiber-optic bronchoscope with various airway sizes (7, 8, 9, 10, and 11). RESULTS: For men, size 9, 10, and 11 airways permitted clear manual and adequate mechanical ventilation; size 7 and 8 airways caused partially obstructed manual and inadequate mechanical ventilation. On endoscopy, size 7 and 8 airways caused complete obstruction by the tongue; size 10 and 11 airways either touched or passed beyond the tip of the epiglottis. For women, the size 7 airway caused partially obstructed manual and inadequate mechanical ventilation; size 9 and 10 airways provided clear manual and adequate mechanical ventilation. The size 8 airway permitted clear manual ventilation, though mechanical ventilation was inadequate in one patient. On endoscopy, the size 7 airway caused complete obstruction in >50% of women; size 9, 10, and 11 airways either touched or passed beyond the tip of the epiglottis. CONCLUSIONS: With respect to adequate ventilation in conjunction with an acceptable endoscopic view, size 9 and size 8 oropharyngeal airways appear to be the most appropriate sizes for clinical use in men and women, respectively.

Full Text

Cited Authors

  • Kim, HJ; Kim, SH; Min, JY; Park, WK

Published Date

  • October 2017

Published In

Volume / Issue

  • 35 / 10

Start / End Page

  • 1430 - 1434

PubMed ID

  • 28529003

Pubmed Central ID

  • 28529003

Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)

  • 1532-8171

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1016/j.ajem.2017.04.029

Language

  • eng

Conference Location

  • United States