Comparison of Laryngeal Mask Airway Versus Endotracheal Intubation in Pediatric Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair

Trial statusRecruiting
Trial phaseNot applicable
Trial typeInterventional
Biological sexAll
Age1-10
SponsorSaglik Bilimleri Universitesi Gazi Yasargil Training and Research Hospital

About this trial

Inguinal hernia is one of the most common conditions requiring surgical intervention in childhood, with a reported lifetime prevalence of 1-4%. With the increasing use of minimally invasive techniques such as PIRS (Percutaneous Internal Ring Suturing) among laparoscopic surgical procedures, perioperative anesthesia and airway management have become a critical area of clinical decision-making. The traditional approach in pediatric laparoscopic surgery is endotracheal intubation (ETT). Although ETT provides reliable airway control, it carries certain disadvantages. In contrast, the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) is less invasive and is associated with faster recovery. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses conducted in recent years have shown that the LMA may be safe for ventilation in pediatric laparoscopy, reduces peak airway pressure, and shortens recovery time. No well-designed, multicenter study with an adequate sample size comparing the LMA and ETT in pediatric laparoscopic inguinal hernia surgery has yet been conducted. This gap limits evidence-based decision-making in a clinical setting that directly impacts practice. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare LMA and ETT in pediatric laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. In this regard, the study is unique and necessary from both clinical and academic perspectives for determining the optimal airway strategy in pediatric laparoscopy.

Eligibility criteria

Qualifiers

being between 1 and 10 years of age,

having a planned laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair,

being classified as ASA I-II,

having given informed consent from the parent.

Disqualifiers

Obesity (body weight >95th percentile),

symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux,

high risk of aspiration,

upper airway anomalies,

Trial design

Treatments tested in this trial

  • General Aneasthesia

Treatment groups

266 Participants
are divided into 2 treatment groups

Sponsors and collaborators

Saglik Bilimleri Universitesi Gazi Yasargil Training and Research Hospital

Lead sponsor

Dicle University

Sponsor institution

Başakşehir Çam & Sakura City Hospital

Collaborator

Mardin Training and Research Hospital

Collaborator

Dicle University

Collaborator