Evidence Hub

Efficacy of laryngeal mask airway versus endotracheal tube during total minimally invasive oesophagectomy: a randomized controlled trial

Xiao-Ming Zheng, Hui Liu, Xiao-Bing Li, Chongming Hu, X. Yin, Yunwei Xu, Liu Wang, Hongwei Meng

Scientific Reports, 2025

45 participants

Abstract

This study aimed to assess the feasibility and efficacy of a laryngeal mask airway (LMA) compared with a single-lumen tube (SLT) in total minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIE). Adult patients who underwent MIE were randomly assigned to either group using an LMA (n = 45) or an SLT (n = 45). The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative pneumonia. Eighty-seven patients completed the study protocol. There were no significant differences in the incidence of postoperative pneumonia (33% vs. 38%; p = 0.665). The incidence of sore throat 2 h after the operation was lower in the LMA group than in the SLT group (10% vs. 27%; p = 0.039). The LMA group had lower pain scores at 2 h (2[2–3] vs. 3[2–4]; p = 0.035) and 1 day (1.5[1–2] vs. 2[1–3]; p = 0.047) after the operation. Compared with the SLT group, the LMA group had a shorter extubation time (16 [15–18] min vs. 18 [17–23.5] min; p < 0.001) and fewer days with gastric tube indwelling (3 [3–5.5] vs. 5 [3–7]; p = 0.011). Nausea and vomiting, hoarseness, delirium, pulmonary aspiration, pleural effusion, anastomotic leakage and postoperative hospital stay did not differ between the two groups. The application of LMA in patients who underwent total MIE enhanced postoperative comfort without increasing the incidence of pulmonary complications. LMA could be a feasible and safe technique for patients with oesophageal cancer.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 45 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free