Conventionally, tracheal tubes have been used for general anesthesia in pediatric laparoscopic surgeries. Recently, supraglottic devices are being used for the same. The performance of supraglottic devices versus tracheal tubes in children undergoing laparoscopic surgery is uncertain.
A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared supraglottic devices versus tracheal tubes in patients ≤18 years undergoing laparoscopic surgery under general anesthesia was conducted. The outcomes were peak airway pressures (cm H2 O), end-tidal carbon dioxide during pneumoperitoneum (mm Hg), recovery time (min), postoperative sore throat and adverse events. Mean difference and odds ratio, with 95% confidence intervals were reported using a random effect model.
Eight trials (n = 591) were included in the final meta-analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in the peak airway pressures (MD 0.58, 95% CI: -0.65 to 1.8; p = .36) and end-tidal carbon dioxide (MD -0.60, 95% CI: -2.00 to 0.80; p = .40) during pneumoperitoneum in the supraglottic device and the tracheal tube group. The tracheal tube group had higher odds of sore throat (OR 3.30, 95% CI: 1.69-6.45; p = .0005) and the supraglottic airway group had faster recovery time (MD 4.21, 95% CI: 3.12-5.31; p < .0001), which were statistically significant. The certainty of evidence is graded low.
There is low quality evidence to suggest that for pediatric laparoscopic surgeries of short duration, supraglottic devices could provide comparable intraoperative ventilation in terms of peak airway pressures and end tidal carbon dioxide, with lower odds of postoperative sore throat and faster recovery time when compared to tracheal tubes.

BACKGROUND: Trauma is one of the leading causes of death in the pediatric population. Bronchial rupture is rare, but there are potentially severe complications. Establishing and maintaining a patent airway is the key issue in patients with bronchial rupture. Here we describe an innovative method for maintaining a patent airway.
METHODS: A 3-year-old boy fell from the seventh floor. Oxygenation worsened rapidly with pulse oxygen saturation decreasing below 60%, as his heart rate dropped. Persistent pneumothorax was observed with insertion of the chest tube. Fiberoptic bronchoscopy was performed, which confirmed the diagnosis of bronchial rupture. A modified tracheal tube was inserted under the guidance of a fiberoptic bronchoscope. Pulse oxygen saturation improved from 60% to 90%. Twelve days after admission, right upper lobectomy was performed using bronchial stump suture by video-assisted thoracic surgery without complications. A follow-up chest radiograph showed good recovery. The child was discharged from hospital three months after admission.
CONCLUSIONS: A modified tracheal tube could be selected to ensure a patent airway and adequate ventilation in patients with bronchial rupture.

Tracheal tubes are routinely used in adults undergoing elective surgery. The size of the tracheal tube, defined by its internal diameter, is often generically selected according to sex, with 7-7.5 mm and 8-8.5 mm tubes recommended in women and men, respectively. Tracheal diameter in adults is highly variable, being narrowest at the subglottis, and is affected by height and sex. The outer diameter of routinely used tracheal tubes may exceed these dimensions, traumatise the airway and increase the risk of postoperative sore throat and hoarseness. These complications disproportionately affect women and may be mitigated by using smaller tracheal tubes (6-6.5 mm). Patient safety concerns about using small tracheal tubes are based on critical care populations undergoing prolonged periods of tracheal intubation and not patients undergoing elective surgery. The internal diameter of the tube corresponds to its clinical utility. Tracheal tubes as small as 6.0 mm will accommodate routinely used intubation aids, suction devices and slim-line fibreoptic bronchoscopes. Positive pressure ventilation may be performed without increasing the risk of ventilator-induced lung injury or air trapping, even when high minute volumes are required. There is also no demonstrable increased risk of aspiration or cuff pressure damage when using smaller tracheal tubes. Small tracheal tubes may not be safe in all patients, such as those with high secretion loads and airflow limitation. A balanced view of risks and benefits should be taken appropriate to the clinical context, to select the smallest tracheal tube that permits safe peri-operative management.

The optimal ventilation rate during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with a tracheal tube is unknown. We evaluated whether in adults with cardiac arrest and a secure airway (tracheal tube), a ventilation rate of 10min-1, compared to any other rate during CPR, improves outcomes.
A systematic review up to 14 July 2016. We included both adult human and animal studies. A GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence for each outcome.
We identified one human observational study with 67 patients and ten animal studies (234 pigs and 30 dogs). All studies carried a high risk of bias. All studies evaluated for return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Studies showed no improvement in ROSC with a ventilation rate of 10 min-1 compared to any other rate. The evidence for longer-term outcomes such as survival to discharge and survival with favourable neurological outcome was very limited.
A ventilation rate recommendation of 10 min-1 during adult CPR with a tracheal tube and no pauses for chest compression is a very weak recommendation based on very low quality evidence.

To determine whether the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) has advantages over the tracheal tube (TT) in terms of incidence of cough, sore throat, laryngospasm, dysphagia, dysphonia, and blood staining. This is a systematic literature review performed at the Universtity Medical Center of Utrecht. The online databases PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials. Two independent reviewers selected relevant articles after title, abstract, and full text screening. Articles were assessed on risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Study results of the LMA and the TT were related to the method of selection of the device size and the method for cuff inflation. Of the 1718 unique articles, we included 19 studies which used the LMA Classic, the LMA Proseal, the Flexible Reinforced LMA, and the LMA Supreme compared with TT. After methodological inspection, data could not be pooled due to heterogeneity among the selected studies. Overall, no clear advantage of the LMA over the TT was found but the LMA Supreme was related to the lowest incidence of airway complications. In this review, no clear difference in incidence of postoperative airway complications could be demonstrated between LMA and TT. The LMA Supreme may reduce the incidence of airway complication in comparison to the TT but high quality randomized trials are recommended to further objectify if use of the LMA decreases the risk on postoperative airway complications.