Comparison of Classic Laryngeal Mask Airway and Endotracheal Intubation for Airway Management During Short Urologic Procedures in the Prone Position: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
- 1Clinical Research Center Shahid Bahonar Hospital Kerman University of Medical Sciences Kerman Iran kmu.ac.ir.
- 2Department of Anatomical Science Afzalipour School of Medicine Kerman University of Medical Sciences Kerman Iran kmu.ac.ir.
Abstract
Background
Airway management in the prone position remains a major challenge in anesthesia, particularly during short urologic procedures. Although endotracheal intubation (ETT) is considered the standard technique, the Classic laryngeal mask airway (LMA) has emerged as a less invasive alternative in patients without an anticipated difficult airway. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of Classic LMA versus ETT for airway management in prone-position urologic surgeries.Methods
In this randomized clinical trial, 70 patients undergoing prone-position urologic surgery with an operative duration of ≤ 90 min were assigned to either the Classic LMA group or ETT group (n = 35 each). Primary outcomes included intraoperative ventilatory performance assessed by peak airway pressure (Ppeak), need for conversion of airway technique, and airway-related complications. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative hemodynamic and respiratory parameters, including heart rate (HR), systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP), oxygen saturation (SpO₂), end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO₂), Ppeak, minute ventilation (VE), and postoperative complications.Results
Baseline demographic and perioperative characteristics were comparable between groups. No significant differences were observed between the Classic LMA and ETT groups regarding intraoperative hemodynamic variables, SpO₂, ETCO₂, or VE. Ppeak was significantly higher in the ETT group (p < 0.001). During recovery, significant time-related changes were observed in hemodynamic and respiratory parameters in both groups, although no clinically significant intergroup differences were identified. Postoperative complications, including sore throat and laryngospasm, were infrequent and comparable between groups.Conclusion
Classic LMA provided airway maintenance and ventilation comparable to ETT in short prone-position urologic surgeries and may be considered as a feasible airway device in patients meeting appropriate airway assessment criteria. Trial Registration: Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT): IRCT20250729066688N1.
Related
- Airway ultrasound versus capnography to confirm endotracheal intubation: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Trans-cuff budesonide delivery and its effects on endotracheal intubation-induced subglottic injury
- Efficacy and Safety of Etomidate Versus Ketamine for Endotracheal Intubation in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- Hemorrhagic Vocal Fold Inflammation Following Endotracheal Intubation in a Patient Undergoing Endovascular Neurosurgery Under Dual Antiplatelet Therapy: A Case Report.
- Development and Internal Validation of a Preintubation Prediction Model for Postintubation Hypotension in Trauma Patients Undergoing Emergency Endotracheal Intubation: A Retrospective Cohort Study
BibTeX
@article{bafghi2026comparison,
title = {{Comparison of Classic Laryngeal Mask Airway and Endotracheal Intubation for Airway Management During Short Urologic Procedures in the Prone Position: A Randomized Controlled Trial.}},
author = {Naeimeh Naeimi Bafghi and Maryam Shamsoddini Motlagh and Neda Naeimi Bafghi and Vida Mirzaie},
journal = {Anesthesiology research and practice},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1155/anrp/1390565},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42928882},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Comparison of Classic Laryngeal Mask Airway and Endotracheal Intubation for Airway Management During Short Urologic Procedures in the Prone Position: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
AU - Naeimeh Naeimi Bafghi
AU - Maryam Shamsoddini Motlagh
AU - Neda Naeimi Bafghi
AU - Vida Mirzaie
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/25
JO - Anesthesiology research and practice
DO - 10.1155/anrp/1390565
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42928882
AB - Background Airway management in the prone position remains a major challenge in anesthesia, particularly during short urologic procedures. Although endotracheal intubation (ETT) is considered the standard technique, the Classic laryngeal mask airway (LMA) has emerged as a less invasive alternative in patients without an anticipated difficult airway. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of Classic LMA versus ETT for airway management in prone-position urologic surgeries.Methods In this randomized clinical trial, 70 patients undergoing prone-position urologic surgery with an operative duration of ≤ 90 min were assigned to either the Classic LMA group or ETT group (n = 35 each). Primary outcomes included intraoperative ventilatory performance assessed by peak airway pressure (Ppeak), need for conversion of airway technique, and airway-related complications. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative hemodynamic and respiratory parameters, including heart rate (HR), systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP), oxygen saturation (SpO₂), end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO₂), Ppeak, minute ventilation (VE), and postoperative complications.Results Baseline demographic and perioperative characteristics were comparable between groups. No significant differences were observed between the Classic LMA and ETT groups regarding intraoperative hemodynamic variables, SpO₂, ETCO₂, or VE. Ppeak was significantly higher in the ETT group (p < 0.001). During recovery, significant time-related changes were observed in hemodynamic and respiratory parameters in both groups, although no clinically significant intergroup differences were identified. Postoperative complications, including sore throat and laryngospasm, were infrequent and comparable between groups.Conclusion Classic LMA provided airway maintenance and ventilation comparable to ETT in short prone-position urologic surgeries and may be considered as a feasible airway device in patients meeting appropriate airway assessment criteria. Trial Registration: Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT): IRCT20250729066688N1.
SN - 1687-6962
SN - 1687-6970
ER -