PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 15, 2026Indian Journal of Anaesthesia0 citationsOpen Access

Comparison of first-attempt endoscope insertion success between LMA® Gastro™ and low-flow nasal cannula during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: A prospective randomised controlled trial

View Full Paper
JSJaphia SelvinJawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and ResearchSVStalin VinayagamJawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and ResearchYEYaal ElangoJawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research

Key Points

  • To compare first-attempt endoscope insertion success between LMA Gastro and low-flow nasal cannula during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy under total intravenous anaesthesia.
  • Randomised controlled trial with 140 patients undergoing upper GI endoscopy under TIVA
  • Participants were divided into two groups: LMA Gastro and low-flow nasal cannula
  • Primary outcome was first-attempt success of endoscope insertion, with secondary outcomes including insertion time and satisfaction scores.
  • First-attempt success rate was comparable between groups: 92.6% for LMA and 95.7% for nasal cannula (P = 0.44)
  • Endoscope insertion time was significantly longer for LMA group: 30 seconds versus 17.5 seconds for nasal cannula (P < 0.001)
  • Intraoperative respiratory events were fewer in the LMA group, but postoperative sore throat was higher at 20.5% in the same group.

Abstract

Background and Aims: Upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures under total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) pose risks of sedation-related complications. This study compared the first-attempt endoscope insertion success between the Laryngeal Mask Airway ® (LMA) Gastro™ and low-flow nasal cannula during upper GI endoscopy under TIVA. Methods: This prospective randomised controlled study involved 140 adult patients scheduled for upper GI endoscopy under TIVA. The participants were randomly assigned into two groups: Group L (LMA ® Gastro™) and Group C (low-flow nasal cannula). In Group L, LMA ® Gastro™ was inserted, and in Group C, oxygen was supplemented using a low-flow nasal cannula at 4 litres/min. The primary outcome was first-attempt success of endoscope insertion. Secondary outcomes included endoscope insertion time, endoscopist and anaesthesiologist satisfaction scores, and intra- and postoperative complications. Data were analysed using statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) 19.0, and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The first-attempt success rate for endoscope insertion was comparable between the groups (Group L: 92.6% vs. Group C: 95.7%, P = 0.44). However, the endoscopy insertion time was significantly prolonged in Group L (Median interquartile range (seconds): 30 22-41 vs. 17.5 13-22, P < 0.001). Anaesthesiologist satisfaction was comparable between the groups, but endoscopists were more satisfied with Group C ( P < 0.001). Group L had significantly fewer intraoperative respiratory adverse events compared with Group C; however, a higher incidence of postoperative sore throat was observed in Group L (20.5%). Conclusion: The first-attempt endoscope insertion success rate was comparable between the LMA ® Gastro™ and nasal cannula groups in patients undergoing upper GI endoscopy under TIVA.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Selvin et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69b606af83145bc643d1ce16https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_43_26
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper