Airway ManagementPhase 4NCT07894029
Effect of Neuromuscular Blocking Agent Use on Video Laryngeal Mask Airway Insertion
A Phase 4 study testing Rocuronium and Standard Anesthesia Induction (Propofol and Remifentanil) in people with Airway Management and Supraglottic Airway Device Insertion, run by Hacettepe University at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
Trial summary
This study aims to investigate whether the administration of a neuromuscular blocking agent (rocuronium) improves the anatomical positioning of a third-generation video laryngeal mask airway (video LMA) in adult patients undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 80 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Airway Management, Supraglottic Airway Device Insertion, Laryngeal Mask Airways
- What is being tested?
- Rocuronium and Standard Anesthesia Induction (Propofol and Remifentanil)
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 128 participants
- Where
- 1 siteTurkey (Türkiye)
- Study dates
- 1 Feb 2027to 1 Feb 2028
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 80 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Age 18-80 years
- American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-II
- Scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia
- Planned airway management with a laryngeal mask airway (LMA)
- Written informed consent
Who cannot join
- Predicted difficult airway based on preoperative anesthesia assessment, defined as any of the following:
- Mallampati class III-IV
- Upper lip bite test class III
- Short thyromental or sternomental distance
- Micrognathia or retrognathia
- Mouth opening less than 3 cm
- Body mass index (BMI) >35 kg/m²
- Emergency surgery
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Turkey (Türkiye)1 site
Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine Hospital
Ankara, Ankara, 06230
Nergis Öztürk, MD, +90 539 236 0117, dr.nergisozturk@gmail.com
Hüseyin U Pınar, MD
About this study
This study aims to investigate whether the administration of a neuromuscular blocking agent (rocuronium) improves the anatomical positioning of a third-generation video laryngeal mask airway (video LMA) in adult patients undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia.
A laryngeal mask airway is a device placed in the throat to maintain an open airway and support ventilation during general anesthesia. The third-generation video LMA incorporates a camera that allows the anesthesiologist to visualize the laryngeal structures and assess device positioning during insertion. Neuromuscular blocking agents reduce muscle tone and may facilitate airway device insertion. However, their potential benefits for the positioning and performance of video LMAs remain unclear.
Read more
This is a prospective, randomized, controlled, parallel-group, outcome assessor-blinded clinical trial. Eligible patients will be randomly assigned to one of two groups. Both groups will receive propofol and remifentanil for anesthesia induction. The intervention group will additionally receive rocuronium (0.6 mg/kg), while the control group will receive no neuromuscular blocking agent.
The primary outcome is the proportion of patients achieving optimal anatomical positioning of the video LMA, defined as a Brimacombe score of 4 on the integrated video image. Secondary outcomes include oropharyngeal leak pressure, insertion time, first-attempt insertion success, number of insertion attempts, ease of insertion, hemodynamic changes, ventilation parameters, airway-related complications, and postoperative adverse effects.
Read the detailed description
Background and Rationale Supraglottic airway devices are widely used for airway management during general anesthesia. Although these devices may provide adequate ventilation even when anatomical positioning is suboptimal, previous studies have reported suboptimal positioning in approximately 50-80% of blindly inserted supraglottic airway devices. Such malpositioning may contribute to airway leakage, gastric aspiration, and airway trauma.
Third-generation video laryngeal mask airways (video LMAs) incorporate an integrated visualization system that enables direct observation of hypopharyngeal structures during insertion. This allows real-time assessment of device positioning and corrective maneuvers when necessary.
Neuromuscular blocking agents may facilitate supraglottic airway insertion by reducing upper airway muscle tone, improving mandibular relaxation and mouth opening, and suppressing laryngeal reflexes. These effects may improve insertion conditions, reduce insertion attempts, and facilitate optimal anatomical positioning. However, adequate insertion conditions can also be achieved without neuromuscular blockade when sufficient anesthetic depth is provided. Previous studies investigating the effects of neuromuscular blocking agents on first- and second-generation laryngeal mask airways have reported conflicting findings.
The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of neuromuscular blockade on the visual placement quality and clinical parameters of third-generation video LMAs during general anesthesia.
Study Design and Participants This is a single-center, prospective, randomized, parallel-group, outcome assessor-blinded superiority trial conducted at Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation.
The study is planned to be conducted between February 1, 2027, and February 1, 2028, following authorization from the Turkish Medicines and Medical Devices Agency.
A total of 128 adult patients aged 18-80 years, with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-II, scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia with planned LMA airway management, will be enrolled.
Patients with a predicted difficult airway, body mass index greater than 35 kg/m², ASA physical status III-IV, or those undergoing emergency surgery will be excluded.
Randomization and Blinding Participants will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to the rocuronium group (Group R, n=64) or the control group (Group K, n=64).
The randomization sequence will be generated electronically using simple or block randomization. Group assignments will be placed in sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. Following preoperative assessment and written informed consent, the corresponding envelope will be opened in the operating room to determine group allocation.
Only the anesthesiologist administering the induction medications will be aware of group allocation. The investigator inserting the video LMA, the investigator assessing the hypopharyngeal view, investigators performing intraoperative and postoperative assessments, and participants will remain blinded to group allocation.
Anesthesia Protocol and Interventions Standard monitoring, including electrocardiography, non-invasive blood pressure measurement, and peripheral oxygen saturation monitoring, will be performed before anesthesia induction.
Patients will receive one of the following induction regimens:
- Group R (Rocuronium Group): Intravenous propofol 2-2.5 mg/kg, remifentanil 1 mcg/kg, and rocuronium 0.6 mg/kg.
- Group K (Control Group): Intravenous propofol 2-2.5 mg/kg and remifentanil 1 mcg/kg, without neuromuscular blockade.
Following anesthesia induction, patients in both groups will be ventilated with 100% oxygen for 3 minutes.
A single-use third-generation video laryngeal mask airway (SafeLM FlexiView) will be inserted using the SafeLM MGL-SP-6 videoscope.
Device size will be selected according to the manufacturer's weight-based recommendations: size 3 for patients weighing 30-50 kg, size 4 for 50-70 kg, and size 5 for 70-100 kg. The cuff will be inflated to the volume recommended by the manufacturer.
The same video LMA system will be used in both groups. The study will not compare the safety or performance of different airway devices; rather, it will evaluate the effects of neuromuscular blockade on device placement quality.
Following insertion and assessment of the hypopharyngeal view, anesthesia will be maintained with sevoflurane at 1 minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) in a mixture of 40% oxygen and 60% air, together with intravenous remifentanil infusion at 0.02-0.07 mcg/kg/min.
Approximately 30 minutes before the end of surgery, all patients will receive standard postoperative analgesia consisting of intravenous paracetamol 1 g, ibuprofen 400 mg, and tramadol 1 mg/kg.
At the end of surgery, patients in Group R will receive intravenous sugammadex 200 mg before removal of the airway device, according to the approved study protocol.
Primary Outcome The primary outcome is the proportion of patients achieving optimal anatomical positioning of the video LMA, defined as a Brimacombe-Berry score of 4.
Following insertion, a blinded investigator will evaluate the hypopharyngeal view using the integrated videoscope and classify device positioning according to the following scoring system:
- Score 4: Only the vocal cords are visible (optimal positioning).
- Score 3: The vocal cords and posterior epiglottis are visible.
- Score 2: The vocal cords and anterior epiglottis are visible.
- Score 1: The vocal cords are not visible, but the device remains functional.
- Score 0: The device is nonfunctional. The proportion of patients achieving a score of 4 will be compared between the two groups.
Secondary Outcomes Secondary outcomes will include oropharyngeal leak pressure, insertion characteristics, ventilation parameters, hemodynamic responses, airway complications, and postoperative adverse effects.
Oropharyngeal leak pressure will be measured following device insertion. Insertion time will be defined as the interval from the moment the investigator places a hand on the patient's chin until the hand is removed from the LMA following insertion.
Insertion difficulty will be evaluated by the inserting investigator using a 0-100 mm visual analog scale (VAS), where 0 indicates extremely easy insertion and 100 indicates extremely difficult insertion.
Additional insertion-related outcomes will include the size of the LMA used, first-attempt insertion success, total number of insertion attempts, and the minimum and maximum heart rate and blood pressure values recorded during insertion.
Insertion-related complications, including airway bleeding, laryngospasm, and oxygen desaturation, will be documented.
Successful ventilation will be confirmed by the presence of an appropriate capnographic waveform.
Five minutes after initiation of mechanical ventilation, peak airway pressure (Ppeak), mean airway pressure (Pmean), and ventilation leak volume, defined as the difference between inspired and expired tidal volumes, will be recorded.
The presence of blood on the LMA after device removal and the durations of anesthesia and surgery will also be documented.
Postoperative adverse effects, including hoarseness, dysphagia, sore throat, nausea, and vomiting, will be assessed at 20 minutes and 6 hours postoperatively through face-to-face interviews. Each symptom will be recorded as present or absent.
Sample Size Calculation The sample size was calculated based on the primary outcome of achieving a Brimacombe-Berry score of 4.
Based on previous literature and clinical observations, the proportion of patients achieving optimal positioning was assumed to be approximately 50% in the control group and 75% in the rocuronium group.
An a priori sample size calculation was performed using G*Power version 3.1.9.6, based on a two-sided Fisher's exact test, a significance level of 0.05, and statistical power of 80%.
According to the study protocol, 64 participants per group, resulting in a total sample size of 128 patients, were determined to be sufficient.
Statistical Analysis Statistical analyses will be performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 25. The distribution of continuous variables will be evaluated using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and homogeneity of variances will be assessed using Levene's test.
Normally distributed continuous variables will be presented as mean ± standard deviation, whereas non-normally distributed variables will be presented as median (minimum-maximum). Categorical variables will be reported as frequencies and percentages.
Continuous variables will be compared between groups using the independent-samples t-test when parametric assumptions are satisfied and the Mann-Whitney U test otherwise.
Categorical variables will be analyzed using Pearson's chi-square test, continuity-corrected chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, or Fisher-Freeman-Halton test, as appropriate.
The primary outcome, defined as the proportion of patients achieving a Brimacombe-Berry score of 4, will be compared between groups using Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher's exact test, depending on expected cell frequencies.
Repeated measurements, including intraoperative hemodynamic parameters and postoperative assessments, will be analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of variance with Wilks' lambda when parametric assumptions are satisfied, or the Friedman test otherwise. Appropriate post hoc tests with Bonferroni correction will be applied when necessary.
Exploratory logistic regression analysis will be performed to investigate clinical factors associated with optimal video LMA positioning. Results will be reported as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.
Unless otherwise specified, a p-value below 0.05 will be considered statistically significant. Appropriate adjustments will be applied for multiple comparisons.
- Conditions
- Airway Management, Supraglottic Airway Device Insertion, Laryngeal Mask Airways, Anesthesia, General, Neuromuscular Blockade
- Being tested
- Rocuronium, Standard Anesthesia Induction (Propofol and Remifentanil)
- Keywords
- Video Laryngeal Mask Airway, Rocuronium, Supraglottic Airway Device, Brimacombe and Berry score
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
RocuroniumDrug
Intravenous rocuronium 0.6 mg/kg administered during anesthesia induction, in addition to propofol and remifentanil, before video laryngeal mask airway placement.
Standard Anesthesia Induction (Propofol and Remifentanil)Drug
Both groups will receive intravenous propofol (2-2.5 mg/kg) and remifentanil (1 mcg/kg) during anesthesia induction before video laryngeal mask airway placement.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Rocuronium Group (Group R) | Experimental | Patients assigned to this group will receive intravenous propofol (2-2.5 mg/kg), remifentanil (1 mcg/kg), and rocuronium (0.6 mg/kg) during anesthesia induction before video laryngeal mask airway placement. Sugammadex 200 mg IV will be administered at the end of surgery before device removal. Receives: Drug: Rocuronium; Drug: Standard Anesthesia Induction (Propofol and Remifentanil) |
| Control Group (Group K) | Active comparator | Patients assigned to this group will receive intravenous propofol (2-2.5 mg/kg) and remifentanil (1 mcg/kg) during anesthesia induction without administration of a neuromuscular blocking agent before video laryngeal mask airway placement. Receives: Drug: Standard Anesthesia Induction (Propofol and Remifentanil) |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Proportion of Patients With Optimal Video LMA Position (Brimacombe-Berry Score 4)
After insertion, a blinded investigator will evaluate the hypopharyngeal view through the integrated videoscope of the video laryngeal mask airway and grade device position using the Brimacombe-Berry scale (0-4): 4 = only vocal cords visible (optimal); 3 = vocal cords and posterior epiglottis visible; 2 = vocal cords and anterior epiglottis visible; 1 = vocal cords not visible but device functional; 0 = device not functional. Higher scores indicate better positioning. The outcome is the percentage of patients with a score of 4 in each group.
Measured: Immediately after video laryngeal mask airway insertion (within 3 minutes of insertion)
Secondary outcomes (10)
Oropharyngeal Leak Pressure
Oropharyngeal leak pressure will be measured after successful placement of the video laryngeal mask airway to assess airway sealing efficacy. The pressure will be recorded in cmH2O and compared between the rocuronium and control groups.
Measured: Immediately after successful video laryngeal mask airway insertion
Video Laryngeal Mask Airway Insertion Time
Time (seconds) from the moment the investigator places a hand on the patient's chin until the hand is removed from the video laryngeal mask airway after insertion.
Measured: During video laryngeal mask airway insertion
First-Attempt Insertion Success Rate
Percentage of patients in whom the video laryngeal mask airway is successfully inserted on the first attempt. Successful ventilation will be confirmed by an appropriate capnographic waveform.
Measured: During video laryngeal mask airway insertion
Number of Video Laryngeal Mask Airway Insertion Attempts
The total number of attempts required to achieve successful video laryngeal mask airway placement will be recorded for each patient and compared between groups.
Measured: During video laryngeal mask airway insertion
Insertion Difficulty Score
Difficulty of insertion rated by the inserting investigator on a 0-100 mm visual analog scale (0 = extremely easy, 100 = extremely difficult).
Measured: Immediately after video laryngeal mask airway insertion
Hemodynamic Parameters
Lowest and highest heart rate (beats/min), blood pressure (mmHg) recorded during video laryngeal mask airway insertion.
Measured: From anesthesia induction to completion of video laryngeal mask airway insertion
Airway Pressures
Peak airway pressure (Ppeak, cmH2O), mean airway pressure (Pmean, cmH2O) recorded from the mechanical ventilator.
Measured: 5 minutes after initiation of mechanical ventilation
Ventilation Leak Volume
Leak volume (mL), calculated as the difference between inspired and expired tidal volumes recorded from the mechanical ventilator.
Measured: 5 minutes after initiation of mechanical ventilation
Insertion-Related Airway Complications
Percentage of patients experiencing airway bleeding, laryngospasm, or oxygen desaturation during video laryngeal mask airway insertion. Each complication will be recorded as present or absent.
Measured: During video laryngeal mask airway insertion
Postoperative Complications
Presence or absence of sore throat, hoarseness, dysphagia, nausea and vomiting assessed by face-to-face interview. Results will be reported as the percentage of patients with complication.
Measured: 20 minutes and 6 hours after surgery
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted26 Oct 2026
- Study start1 Feb 2027 (estimated)
- Primary completion1 Feb 2028 (estimated)
- Study completion1 Feb 2028 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (13)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Airway ManagementStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Hacettepe UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- This is a prospective, randomized, controlled, parallel-group trial in which participants are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either rocuronium or no neuromuscular blocking agent during anesthesia induction, to compare video laryngeal mask airway positioning and insertion conditions between the two groups.
- Masking
- Triple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 128 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Hacettepe University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Hüseyin Ulaş Pinar, Hacettepe University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07894029
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- KA-25051
- Other IDs
- 26-AKD-244
- Status last verified
- Oct 2026
- First submitted
- 18 Oct 2026
- Last updated
- 26 Oct 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: Individual participant data will not be shared. In accordance with the approved study protocol and the Turkish Personal Data Protection Law (KVKK, Law No. 6698), data will be stored in coded/de-identified form, will not be shared outside the research team, and will be used only for the purposes of this study.
Publications
Sun Y, Zhang M, Gao X, Gao Z, Zou T, Guo Y, Liu M, Chen L, Zhang X, Liu Y, Feng H, Wang Y. Effect of the new video laryngeal mask airway SaCoVLM on airway management in lateral laparoscopic urological surgery: A single center randomized controlled trial. Sci Rep. 2024 Jan 25;14(1):2132. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-51856-4.
PubMed 38272937Chaw SH, Shariffuddin II, Md Yusof MA, Wong CW, Ruslan SR, Hussain NA, Zainal Abidin MF, van Zundert A. Predicting optimal supraglottic airway device placement: do placement and performance tests measure up? BMC Anesthesiol. 2025 Oct 14;25(1):494. doi: 10.1186/s12871-025-03278-6.
PubMed 41087887An G, Fang B, Wang Z. Comparing the insertion and ventilation of laryngeal mask airway according to the patient's head position and muscle relaxation use. A prospective clinical trial. Saudi Med J. 2019 Jul;40(7):687-693. doi: 10.15537/smj.2019.7.24299.
PubMed 31287129van Zundert AAJ, Gatt SP, van Zundert TCRV, Hagberg CA, Pandit JJ. A New Scoring System to Evaluate the Position and Functioning of Supraglottic Airway Devices in Research and Clinical Audits. Anesth Analg. 2025 Feb 1;140(2):345-349. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000006970. Epub 2024 Sep 12. No abstract available.
PubMed 39269690Ambulkar R, Tan AY, Chia NC, Low TC. Comparison between use of neuromuscular blocking agent and placebo with the intubating laryngeal mask airway. Singapore Med J. 2008 Jun;49(6):462-5.
PubMed 18581018Ikeda A, Isono S, Sato Y, Yogo H, Sato J, Ishikawa T, Nishino T. Effects of muscle relaxants on mask ventilation in anesthetized persons with normal upper airway anatomy. Anesthesiology. 2012 Sep;117(3):487-93. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3182668670.
PubMed 22846679Tolhurst JT, Hendrix GH. Takayasu's arteritis. J S C Med Assoc. 1989 May;85(5):234-6. No abstract available.
PubMed 2566712Van Zundert AA, Kumar CM, Van Zundert TC. Malpositioning of supraglottic airway devices: preventive and corrective strategies. Br J Anaesth. 2016 May;116(5):579-82. doi: 10.1093/bja/aew104. No abstract available.
PubMed 27106958Van Zundert AA, Skinner MW, Van Zundert TC, Luney SR, Pandit JJ. Value of knowing physical characteristics of the airway device before using it. Br J Anaesth. 2016 Jul;117(1):12-6. doi: 10.1093/bja/aew106. Epub 2016 May 4. No abstract available.
PubMed 27147543Cook TM, Kelly FE. Time to abandon the 'vintage' laryngeal mask airway and adopt second-generation supraglottic airway devices as first choice. Br J Anaesth. 2015 Oct;115(4):497-9. doi: 10.1093/bja/aev156. Epub 2015 May 20. No abstract available.
PubMed 25995266Frerk C, Mitchell VS, McNarry AF, Mendonca C, Bhagrath R, Patel A, O'Sullivan EP, Woodall NM, Ahmad I; Difficult Airway Society intubation guidelines working group. Difficult Airway Society 2015 guidelines for management of unanticipated difficult intubation in adults. Br J Anaesth. 2015 Dec;115(6):827-48. doi: 10.1093/bja/aev371. Epub 2015 Nov 10.
PubMed 26556848Danha RF, Thompson JL, Popat MT, Pandit JJ. Comparison of fibreoptic-guided orotracheal intubation through classic and single-use laryngeal mask airways. Anaesthesia. 2005 Feb;60(2):184-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2004.04045.x.
PubMed 15644018Van Zundert AAJ, Gatt SP, Van Zundert TCRV, Kumar CM, Pandit JJ. Features of new vision-incorporated third-generation video laryngeal mask airways. J Clin Monit Comput. 2022 Aug;36(4):921-928. doi: 10.1007/s10877-021-00780-3. Epub 2021 Dec 17.
PubMed 34919170
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 26 Oct 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Effect of Neuromuscular Blocking Agent Use on Video Laryngeal Mask Airway Insertion
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07894029
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- KA-25051
- Conditions
- Airway Management, Supraglottic Airway Device Insertion, Laryngeal Mask Airways, Anesthesia, General, Neuromuscular Blockade
- Keywords
- Video Laryngeal Mask Airway, Rocuronium, Supraglottic Airway Device, Brimacombe and Berry score
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Not yet recruiting
- Enrolment
- 128 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Hacettepe UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Feb 2027 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- 1 Feb 2028 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 1 Feb 2028 (estimated)
- First posted
- 26 Oct 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This study aims to investigate whether the administration of a neuromuscular blocking agent (rocuronium) improves the anatomical positioning of a third-generation video laryngeal mask airway (video LMA) in adult patients undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia.
A laryngeal mask airway is a device placed in the throat to maintain an open airway and support ventilation during general anesthesia. The third-generation video LMA incorporates a camera that allows the anesthesiologist to visualize the laryngeal structures and assess device positioning during insertion. Neuromuscular blocking agents reduce muscle tone and may facilitate airway device insertion. However, their potential benefits for the positioning and performance of video LMAs remain unclear.
This is a prospective, randomized, controlled, parallel-group, outcome assessor-blinded clinical trial. Eligible patients will be randomly assigned to one of two groups. Both groups will receive propofol and remifentanil for anesthesia induction. The intervention group will additionally receive rocuronium (0.6 mg/kg), while the control group will receive no neuromuscular blocking agent.
The primary outcome is the proportion of patients achieving optimal anatomical positioning of the video LMA, defined as a Brimacombe score of 4 on the integrated video image. Secondary outcomes include oropharyngeal leak pressure, insertion time, first-attempt insertion success, number of insertion attempts, ease of insertion, hemodynamic changes, ventilation parameters, airway-related complications, and postoperative adverse effects.
Detailed description
Background and Rationale Supraglottic airway devices are widely used for airway management during general anesthesia. Although these devices may provide adequate ventilation even when anatomical positioning is suboptimal, previous studies have reported suboptimal positioning in approximately 50-80% of blindly inserted supraglottic airway devices. Such malpositioning may contribute to airway leakage, gastric aspiration, and airway trauma.
Third-generation video laryngeal mask airways (video LMAs) incorporate an integrated visualization system that enables direct observation of hypopharyngeal structures during insertion. This allows real-time assessment of device positioning and corrective maneuvers when necessary.
Neuromuscular blocking agents may facilitate supraglottic airway insertion by reducing upper airway muscle tone, improving mandibular relaxation and mouth opening, and suppressing laryngeal reflexes. These effects may improve insertion conditions, reduce insertion attempts, and facilitate optimal anatomical positioning. However, adequate insertion conditions can also be achieved without neuromuscular blockade when sufficient anesthetic depth is provided. Previous studies investigating the effects of neuromuscular blocking agents on first- and second-generation laryngeal mask airways have reported conflicting findings.
The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of neuromuscular blockade on the visual placement quality and clinical parameters of third-generation video LMAs during general anesthesia.
Study Design and Participants This is a single-center, prospective, randomized, parallel-group, outcome assessor-blinded superiority trial conducted at Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation.
The study is planned to be conducted between February 1, 2027, and February 1, 2028, following authorization from the Turkish Medicines and Medical Devices Agency.
A total of 128 adult patients aged 18-80 years, with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-II, scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia with planned LMA airway management, will be enrolled.
Patients with a predicted difficult airway, body mass index greater than 35 kg/m², ASA physical status III-IV, or those undergoing emergency surgery will be excluded.
Randomization and Blinding Participants will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to the rocuronium group (Group R, n=64) or the control group (Group K, n=64).
The randomization sequence will be generated electronically using simple or block randomization. Group assignments will be placed in sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. Following preoperative assessment and written informed consent, the corresponding envelope will be opened in the operating room to determine group allocation.
Only the anesthesiologist administering the induction medications will be aware of group allocation. The investigator inserting the video LMA, the investigator assessing the hypopharyngeal view, investigators performing intraoperative and postoperative assessments, and participants will remain blinded to group allocation.
Anesthesia Protocol and Interventions Standard monitoring, including electrocardiography, non-invasive blood pressure measurement, and peripheral oxygen saturation monitoring, will be performed before anesthesia induction.
Patients will receive one of the following induction regimens:
- Group R (Rocuronium Group): Intravenous propofol 2-2.5 mg/kg, remifentanil 1 mcg/kg, and rocuronium 0.6 mg/kg.
- Group K (Control Group): Intravenous propofol 2-2.5 mg/kg and remifentanil 1 mcg/kg, without neuromuscular blockade.
Following anesthesia induction, patients in both groups will be ventilated with 100% oxygen for 3 minutes.
A single-use third-generation video laryngeal mask airway (SafeLM FlexiView) will be inserted using the SafeLM MGL-SP-6 videoscope.
Device size will be selected according to the manufacturer's weight-based recommendations: size 3 for patients weighing 30-50 kg, size 4 for 50-70 kg, and size 5 for 70-100 kg. The cuff will be inflated to the volume recommended by the manufacturer.
The same video LMA system will be used in both groups. The study will not compare the safety or performance of different airway devices; rather, it will evaluate the effects of neuromuscular blockade on device placement quality.
Following insertion and assessment of the hypopharyngeal view, anesthesia will be maintained with sevoflurane at 1 minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) in a mixture of 40% oxygen and 60% air, together with intravenous remifentanil infusion at 0.02-0.07 mcg/kg/min.
Approximately 30 minutes before the end of surgery, all patients will receive standard postoperative analgesia consisting of intravenous paracetamol 1 g, ibuprofen 400 mg, and tramadol 1 mg/kg.
At the end of surgery, patients in Group R will receive intravenous sugammadex 200 mg before removal of the airway device, according to the approved study protocol.
Primary Outcome The primary outcome is the proportion of patients achieving optimal anatomical positioning of the video LMA, defined as a Brimacombe-Berry score of 4.
Following insertion, a blinded investigator will evaluate the hypopharyngeal view using the integrated videoscope and classify device positioning according to the following scoring system:
- Score 4: Only the vocal cords are visible (optimal positioning).
- Score 3: The vocal cords and posterior epiglottis are visible.
- Score 2: The vocal cords and anterior epiglottis are visible.
- Score 1: The vocal cords are not visible, but the device remains functional.
- Score 0: The device is nonfunctional. The proportion of patients achieving a score of 4 will be compared between the two groups.
Secondary Outcomes Secondary outcomes will include oropharyngeal leak pressure, insertion characteristics, ventilation parameters, hemodynamic responses, airway complications, and postoperative adverse effects.
Oropharyngeal leak pressure will be measured following device insertion. Insertion time will be defined as the interval from the moment the investigator places a hand on the patient's chin until the hand is removed from the LMA following insertion.
Insertion difficulty will be evaluated by the inserting investigator using a 0-100 mm visual analog scale (VAS), where 0 indicates extremely easy insertion and 100 indicates extremely difficult insertion.
Additional insertion-related outcomes will include the size of the LMA used, first-attempt insertion success, total number of insertion attempts, and the minimum and maximum heart rate and blood pressure values recorded during insertion.
Insertion-related complications, including airway bleeding, laryngospasm, and oxygen desaturation, will be documented.
Successful ventilation will be confirmed by the presence of an appropriate capnographic waveform.
Five minutes after initiation of mechanical ventilation, peak airway pressure (Ppeak), mean airway pressure (Pmean), and ventilation leak volume, defined as the difference between inspired and expired tidal volumes, will be recorded.
The presence of blood on the LMA after device removal and the durations of anesthesia and surgery will also be documented.
Postoperative adverse effects, including hoarseness, dysphagia, sore throat, nausea, and vomiting, will be assessed at 20 minutes and 6 hours postoperatively through face-to-face interviews. Each symptom will be recorded as present or absent.
Sample Size Calculation The sample size was calculated based on the primary outcome of achieving a Brimacombe-Berry score of 4.
Based on previous literature and clinical observations, the proportion of patients achieving optimal positioning was assumed to be approximately 50% in the control group and 75% in the rocuronium group.
An a priori sample size calculation was performed using G*Power version 3.1.9.6, based on a two-sided Fisher's exact test, a significance level of 0.05, and statistical power of 80%.
According to the study protocol, 64 participants per group, resulting in a total sample size of 128 patients, were determined to be sufficient.
Statistical Analysis Statistical analyses will be performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 25. The distribution of continuous variables will be evaluated using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and homogeneity of variances will be assessed using Levene's test.
Normally distributed continuous variables will be presented as mean ± standard deviation, whereas non-normally distributed variables will be presented as median (minimum-maximum). Categorical variables will be reported as frequencies and percentages.
Continuous variables will be compared between groups using the independent-samples t-test when parametric assumptions are satisfied and the Mann-Whitney U test otherwise.
Categorical variables will be analyzed using Pearson's chi-square test, continuity-corrected chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, or Fisher-Freeman-Halton test, as appropriate.
The primary outcome, defined as the proportion of patients achieving a Brimacombe-Berry score of 4, will be compared between groups using Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher's exact test, depending on expected cell frequencies.
Repeated measurements, including intraoperative hemodynamic parameters and postoperative assessments, will be analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of variance with Wilks' lambda when parametric assumptions are satisfied, or the Friedman test otherwise. Appropriate post hoc tests with Bonferroni correction will be applied when necessary.
Exploratory logistic regression analysis will be performed to investigate clinical factors associated with optimal video LMA positioning. Results will be reported as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.
Unless otherwise specified, a p-value below 0.05 will be considered statistically significant. Appropriate adjustments will be applied for multiple comparisons.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Triple blind (participant, investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- This is a prospective, randomized, controlled, parallel-group trial in which participants are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either rocuronium or no neuromuscular blocking agent during anesthesia induction, to compare video laryngeal mask airway positioning and insertion conditions between the two groups.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Rocuronium Group (Group R) | Experimental | Drug: Rocuronium, Drug: Standard Anesthesia Induction (Propofol and Remifentanil)Patients assigned to this group will receive intravenous propofol (2-2.5 mg/kg), remifentanil (1 mcg/kg), and rocuronium (0.6 mg/kg) during anesthesia induction before video laryngeal mask airway placement. Sugammadex 200 mg IV will be administered at the end of surgery before device removal. |
| Control Group (Group K) | Active comparator | Drug: Standard Anesthesia Induction (Propofol and Remifentanil)Patients assigned to this group will receive intravenous propofol (2-2.5 mg/kg) and remifentanil (1 mcg/kg) during anesthesia induction without administration of a neuromuscular blocking agent before video laryngeal mask airway placement. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 80 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Age 18-80 years
- American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-II
- Scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia
- Planned airway management with a laryngeal mask airway (LMA)
- Written informed consent
Key exclusion criteria (8 listed)
- Predicted difficult airway based on preoperative anesthesia assessment, defined as any of the following:
- Mallampati class III-IV
- Upper lip bite test class III
- Short thyromental or sternomental distance
- Micrognathia or retrognathia
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| RocuroniumIntravenous rocuronium 0.6 mg/kg administered during anesthesia induction, in addition to propofol and remifentanil, before video laryngeal mask airway placement. | Drug | Rocuronium Group (Group R) |
| Standard Anesthesia Induction (Propofol and Remifentanil)Both groups will receive intravenous propofol (2-2.5 mg/kg) and remifentanil (1 mcg/kg) during anesthesia induction before video laryngeal mask airway placement. | Drug | Control Group (Group K), Rocuronium Group (Group R) |
Primary outcome
Proportion of Patients With Optimal Video LMA Position (Brimacombe-Berry Score 4)
Time frame: Immediately after video laryngeal mask airway insertion (within 3 minutes of insertion)
After insertion, a blinded investigator will evaluate the hypopharyngeal view through the integrated videoscope of the video laryngeal mask airway and grade device position using the Brimacombe-Berry scale (0-4): 4 = only vocal cords visible (optimal); 3 = vocal cords and posterior epiglottis visible; 2 = vocal cords and anterior epiglottis visible; 1 = vocal cords not visible but device functional; 0 = device not functional. Higher scores indicate better positioning. The outcome is the percentage of patients with a score of 4 in each group.
10 secondary outcomes
Oropharyngeal Leak Pressure
Time frame: Immediately after successful video laryngeal mask airway insertion
Video Laryngeal Mask Airway Insertion Time
Time frame: During video laryngeal mask airway insertion
First-Attempt Insertion Success Rate
Time frame: During video laryngeal mask airway insertion
Number of Video Laryngeal Mask Airway Insertion Attempts
Time frame: During video laryngeal mask airway insertion
Insertion Difficulty Score
Time frame: Immediately after video laryngeal mask airway insertion
Hemodynamic Parameters
Time frame: From anesthesia induction to completion of video laryngeal mask airway insertion
Airway Pressures
Time frame: 5 minutes after initiation of mechanical ventilation
Ventilation Leak Volume
Time frame: 5 minutes after initiation of mechanical ventilation
Insertion-Related Airway Complications
Time frame: During video laryngeal mask airway insertion
Postoperative Complications
Time frame: 20 minutes and 6 hours after surgery
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 26 Oct 2026.
- Background: PubMed 38272937Sun Y, Zhang M, Gao X, Gao Z, Zou T, Guo Y, Liu M, Chen L, Zhang X, Liu Y, Feng H, Wang Y. Effect of the new video laryngeal mask airway SaCoVLM on airway management in lateral laparoscopic urological surgery: A single center randomized controlled trial. Sci Rep. 2024 Jan 25;14(1):2132. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-51856-4.
- Background: PubMed 41087887Chaw SH, Shariffuddin II, Md Yusof MA, Wong CW, Ruslan SR, Hussain NA, Zainal Abidin MF, van Zundert A. Predicting optimal supraglottic airway device placement: do placement and performance tests measure up? BMC Anesthesiol. 2025 Oct 14;25(1):494. doi: 10.1186/s12871-025-03278-6.
- Background: PubMed 31287129An G, Fang B, Wang Z. Comparing the insertion and ventilation of laryngeal mask airway according to the patient's head position and muscle relaxation use. A prospective clinical trial. Saudi Med J. 2019 Jul;40(7):687-693. doi: 10.15537/smj.2019.7.24299.
- Background: PubMed 39269690van Zundert AAJ, Gatt SP, van Zundert TCRV, Hagberg CA, Pandit JJ. A New Scoring System to Evaluate the Position and Functioning of Supraglottic Airway Devices in Research and Clinical Audits. Anesth Analg. 2025 Feb 1;140(2):345-349. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000006970. Epub 2024 Sep 12. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 18581018Ambulkar R, Tan AY, Chia NC, Low TC. Comparison between use of neuromuscular blocking agent and placebo with the intubating laryngeal mask airway. Singapore Med J. 2008 Jun;49(6):462-5.
- Background: PubMed 22846679Ikeda A, Isono S, Sato Y, Yogo H, Sato J, Ishikawa T, Nishino T. Effects of muscle relaxants on mask ventilation in anesthetized persons with normal upper airway anatomy. Anesthesiology. 2012 Sep;117(3):487-93. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3182668670.
- Background: PubMed 2566712Tolhurst JT, Hendrix GH. Takayasu's arteritis. J S C Med Assoc. 1989 May;85(5):234-6. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 27106958Van Zundert AA, Kumar CM, Van Zundert TC. Malpositioning of supraglottic airway devices: preventive and corrective strategies. Br J Anaesth. 2016 May;116(5):579-82. doi: 10.1093/bja/aew104. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 27147543Van Zundert AA, Skinner MW, Van Zundert TC, Luney SR, Pandit JJ. Value of knowing physical characteristics of the airway device before using it. Br J Anaesth. 2016 Jul;117(1):12-6. doi: 10.1093/bja/aew106. Epub 2016 May 4. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 25995266Cook TM, Kelly FE. Time to abandon the 'vintage' laryngeal mask airway and adopt second-generation supraglottic airway devices as first choice. Br J Anaesth. 2015 Oct;115(4):497-9. doi: 10.1093/bja/aev156. Epub 2015 May 20. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 26556848Frerk C, Mitchell VS, McNarry AF, Mendonca C, Bhagrath R, Patel A, O'Sullivan EP, Woodall NM, Ahmad I; Difficult Airway Society intubation guidelines working group. Difficult Airway Society 2015 guidelines for management of unanticipated difficult intubation in adults. Br J Anaesth. 2015 Dec;115(6):827-48. doi: 10.1093/bja/aev371. Epub 2015 Nov 10.
- Background: PubMed 15644018Danha RF, Thompson JL, Popat MT, Pandit JJ. Comparison of fibreoptic-guided orotracheal intubation through classic and single-use laryngeal mask airways. Anaesthesia. 2005 Feb;60(2):184-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2004.04045.x.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. Individual participant data will not be shared. In accordance with the approved study protocol and the Turkish Personal Data Protection Law (KVKK, Law No. 6698), data will be stored in coded/de-identified form, will not be shared outside the research team, and will be used only for the purposes of this study.
Related trials for Airway Management
Not yet recruiting
Tizanidine Premedication Versus Placebo for Laryngeal Mask Airway Insertion and Recovery in Adults Undergoing Ambulatory Surgery
Airway Management
Not yet recruitingObservational study
AI-assisted Tracheal Intubation in Children
Intubation
Recruiting
Comparing Surfactant Administration Through Supraglottic Airway and Thin Catheter for Preterm Infants
Surfactant, Respiratory Distress Syndrome (Neonatal)
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Preoperative Frailty and Suboptimal Mask Ventilation in Cardiac Surgery Patients
Frailty, Suboptimal Mask Ventilation
Not yet recruitingPhase 2
A Study to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of Co-administration of GSK3862995B With GSK5784283 in Adult Participants With Moderate to Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)
Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 4 study testing Rocuronium and Standard Anesthesia Induction (Propofol and Remifentanil) in people with Airway Management and Supraglottic Airway Device Insertion, run by Hacettepe University at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 8 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: opening soon, as of the sponsor's last update on 26 Oct 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye). Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 4 studies take place after a treatment is approved, to learn more about its long-term benefits and risks in everyday use.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Nergis Öztürk, MD (+90 539 236 0117, dr.nergisozturk@gmail.com), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Proportion of Patients With Optimal Video LMA Position (Brimacombe-Berry Score 4) (time frame: Immediately after video laryngeal mask airway insertion (within 3 minutes of insertion)). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07894029, which also lists 13 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 26 Oct 2026.