Prospective Evaluation of Reinforced Laryngeal Mask Airway Use in Ambulatory Facial Aesthetic Surgery: A Clinician-Led Innovation in Airway Management
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51985/Keywords:
Ambulatory Surgical Procedures; Airway Management; Anaesthesia, General; Laryngeal Masks; Patient Satisfaction; Post-anaesthesia Care UnitsAbstract
Objective: To prospectively evaluate the safety, ergonomic advantages, and team-centred workflow impact of the reinforced laryngeal mask airway in ambulatory facial aesthetic surgery.
Study Design and Setting: A single-centre prospective observational study conducted at Care Medical Centre, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, from 1st July–31st December 2025.
Methodology: One hundred and ten ASA I–II adult patients undergoing elective facial aesthetic procedures (submental liposuction, blepharoplasty, lip lift) were managed with reinforced laryngeal mask airway under general anaesthesia without neuromuscular blockade. Primary outcomes included RLMA placement success, need for intraoperative airway adjustment, and airway-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes included recovery time and structured surgical-team satisfaction using a 5-point Likert scale..
Results: Reinforced laryngeal mask airway placement succeeded on the first attempt in 100% of cases. Minor repositioning was required in 14 patients (12.7%). No hypoxia (SpO2 <94%), laryngospasm, regurgitation, or aspiration occurred. No conversion to endotracheal intubation was necessary. Mean discharge time from post anaesthesia care unit was 2.3 ± 0.4 hours. Staff satisfaction scores were high: surgical access (4.7/5), airway stability (4.6/5), and workflow facilitation (4.5/5). Conclusion: The reinforced laryngeal mask airway is a safe, highly effective, and workflow-enhancing airway choice for ambulatory facial cosmetic surgery. Its flexible design ensures unobstructed surgical access without the need for neuromuscular
blockade. This prospective cohort provides systematic evidence supporting the use of RLMA in selected facial aesthetic procedures and highlights the value of clinician-led innovation in perioperative care
References
1. Bharadwaj S, Dougherty W. Anaesthesia for office-based
facial plastic surgery procedures. World J Otorhinolaryngol
Head Neck Surg. 2023;9(3):200–205. https://doi.org/10.1002/
wjo2.131
2. Vega Morales AQ, Lara Pérez MA, Ruiz Reyes DP.
Advancements in plastic surgery and facial reconstruction:
a comprehensive review of surgical techniques and outcomes.
Int J Med Sci Clin Res Stud. 2023;3(12). https://doi.org/10.
47191/ijmscrs/v3-i12-56
3. Luba K, Apfelbaum JL, Cutter TW. Airway management in
the outpatient setting. Clin Plast Surg. 2013;40(3):405–417.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cps.2013.04.005
4. Meitzen S, Black J. Reducing risk for perioperative anaesthesia
complications. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am.
2023;31(2):325–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsc.2023.01.016
5. Alvarado AC, Panakos P. Endotracheal intubation techniques.
In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls
Publishing; 2025 Jan [updated 2023 Jul 10]. PMID: 32809565.
Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/books/NBK
560730/
6. Hendrix JM, Regunath H. Intubation endotracheal tube
medications. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL):StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan– [updated 2025 Jan 19].
Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/
NBK459276/
7. Kumar T, Bharati S, Suman S, Kumar S, Acharya G, Lakra
L. Supraglottic airway devices versus endotracheal intubation
for laparoscopic surgeries: an updated systematic review and
meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Indian J Anaesth.
2023;67(5):409–419. https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_398_22
8. Schwartz S, Peng YG. The laryngeal mask airway: expanding
use beyond routine spontaneous ventilation for surgery. APSF
Newsl. 2021;36(3). Available from: https://www.apsf.org
/article/the-laryngeal-mask-airway-expanding-use-beyondroutine-spontaneous-ventilation-for-surgery/
9. Tannheimer M, Reinke M, Lechner R. Comparison of laryngeal
mask airway seal between anesthesiologists and individuals
without previous airway experience. J Emerg Med.
2024;66(4):e470–e476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jemermed.2023.11.024
10. Raokadam V, Thiruvenkatarajan V, Bouras GS, Zhang A,
Psaltis A. Emergence characteristics comparing endotracheal
tube to reinforced laryngeal mask airway during endoscopic
sinus surgery: a randomised controlled study. Indian J Anaesth.
2024;68(5):460–466. https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_966_23
11. Alves S, Gomes C, Caldas S, Gonçalves M, Ferreira J.
Reinforced laryngeal mask airway in ambulatory
otorhinolaryngologic surgery: tonsillectomy and/or
adenoidectomy in paediatric population. Ambul Surg.
2021;27(3):51–52. Available from: https://ambulatorysurgery.
org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/ AMB-SURG-27.3-
ALVES.pdf
12. Bolous NS, Graetz DE, Ashrafian H, et al. Harnessing a
clinician-led governance model to overcome healthcare
tribalism and drive innovation: a case study of Northumbria
NHS Foundation Trust. J Health Organ Manag. 2022; aheadof-print:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-05-2022-0157
13. Ali MP, Visser EH, West RL, van Noord D, van der Woude
CJ, van Deen WK. Reporting feedback on healthcare outcomes
to improve quality in care: a scoping review. Implement Sci.
2025;20(1):14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-025-01424-9
14. Graves L, Dalgarno N, Hoorn RV, et al. Creating change:
Kotter’s change management model in action. Can Med Educ
J. 2023;14(3):136–139. https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.76680
15. Singh PK, Singh S, Kumari V, Tiwari M. Navigating healthcare
leadership: theories, challenges, and practical insights for the
future. J Postgrad Med. 2024;70(4):232–241. https://doi.org/
10.4103/jpgm.jpgm_533_24
16. Nair A, Borkar N, Murke SS, Dudhedia U. Safety and efficacy
of the use of supraglottic airway devices in children and
adolescents undergoing adenotonsillectomy: a systematic
review and meta-analysis. J Pers Med. 2024;14(3):311.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14030311
17. Omaygenc DO, Boyaci N, Olmez YE, Kahya E, Aydin N,
Sen O. Airway complications associated with laryngeal mask
use in short surgical procedures: a training perspective. AinShams J Anaesthesiol. 2025;17(1):1–8. https://doi.org/
10.21608/asja.2024.251049.1022
18. Mardini D, Catalano P, Wijewickrama R, Fraihat A. Comparing
the use of the flexible laryngeal mask airway versus the
endotracheal tube in upper airway surgery. Acta Sci
Otolaryngol. 2022;4:67–72. https://doi.org/10.31080
/ASOL.2022.04.04519. Hung KC, Wu SC, Hsu CW, et al. Efficacy of laryngeal mask
airway against postoperative pharyngolaryngeal complications
following thyroid surgery: a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled studies. Sci Rep.
2022;12(1):18210. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-21989-
5
20. Vilendrer S, Saliba-Gustafsson EA, Asch SM, et al. Evaluating
clinician-led quality improvement initiatives: a system-wide
embedded research partnership at Stanford Medicine. Learn
Health Syst. 2022;6(4):e10335. https://doi.org/10.1002/
lrh2.10335
21. Liu R, Wang Y, Huang R, et al. Applying Kotter’s change
model to implement constructive alignment in clinical teaching
rounds for service evaluation. J Eval Clin Pract.
2025;31(3):e70076. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70076
22. Wurster F, Di Gion P, Goldberg N, et al. Rogers’ diffusion of
innovations theory and the adoption of a patient portal’s digital
anamnesis collection tool: study protocol for the MAiBest
project. Implement Sci Commun. 2024;5(1):74.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00614-8
23. Zhang X, Yu P, Yan J, et al. Using diffusion of innovation
theory to understand the factors impacting patient acceptance
and use of consumer e-health innovations: a case study in a
primary care clinic. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:71.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-0726-2
24. Liu F, Xi C, Cui X, Wang G. Efficacy and safety of flexible
laryngeal mask ventilation in otologic surgery: a retrospective
analysis. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2022;15:945–954.
https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S354891
25. Zaman B, Noorizad S, Safari S, Javadi Larijani SMH, Seyed
Siamdoust SA. Efficacy of laryngeal mask airway compared
to endotracheal tube: a randomized clinical trial. Anesth Pain
Med. 2022;12(1):e120478. https://doi.org/10.5812/
aapm.120478
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Journal of Bahria University Medical & Dental College is an open access journal and is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0. which permits unrestricted non commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
