BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to compare three disposable airway devices, the LMA Unique (LMA-U), the Ambu laryngeal mask (Ambu LM) and the Soft Seal laryngeal mask (Soft Seal LM) for elective general anaesthesia during controlled ventilation in non-paralysed patients. METHODS:One hundred and twenty ASA I-III patients scheduled for routine minor obstetric surgery were randomly allocated to the LMA-U (n = 40), Ambu LM (n = 40) or Soft Seal LM (n = 40) groups, respectively. Patients were comparable with respect to weight and airway characteristics. A size 4 LMA was used in all patients and inserted by a single experienced anaesthesiologist. Oxygenation, overall success rate, insertion time, cuff pressure and resulting airwayleak pressure were determined as well as a subjective assessment of handling and the incidence of sore throat, dysphagia and hoarseness. RESULTS:Time of insertion was shortest with the Ambu LM, while failure rates were comparable with the LMA-U, the Ambu LM and the Soft Seal LM (median 19 s; range 8-57 s; success rate 100% vs. 14; 8-35; 97% vs. 20; 12-46; 95%). Insertion was judged 'excellent' in 75% of patients in the LMA-U group, in 70% of patients in Ambu LM group and in 65% of patients in the Soft Seal LM group. There was no difference between devices with respect to postoperative airway morbidity at 6 h or 24 h following surgery. CONCLUSIONS: All three disposable devices were clinically suitable with respect to insertion times, success rates, oxygenation, airway and leak pressures, as well as to subjective handling and postoperative airway morbidity.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to compare three disposable airway devices, the LMA Unique (LMA-U), the Ambu laryngeal mask (Ambu LM) and the Soft Seal laryngeal mask (Soft Seal LM) for elective general anaesthesia during controlled ventilation in non-paralysed patients. METHODS: One hundred and twenty ASA I-III patients scheduled for routine minor obstetric surgery were randomly allocated to the LMA-U (n = 40), Ambu LM (n = 40) or Soft Seal LM (n = 40) groups, respectively. Patients were comparable with respect to weight and airway characteristics. A size 4 LMA was used in all patients and inserted by a single experienced anaesthesiologist. Oxygenation, overall success rate, insertion time, cuff pressure and resulting airway leak pressure were determined as well as a subjective assessment of handling and the incidence of sore throat, dysphagia and hoarseness. RESULTS: Time of insertion was shortest with the Ambu LM, while failure rates were comparable with the LMA-U, the Ambu LM and the Soft Seal LM (median 19 s; range 8-57 s; success rate 100% vs. 14; 8-35; 97% vs. 20; 12-46; 95%). Insertion was judged 'excellent' in 75% of patients in the LMA-U group, in 70% of patients in Ambu LM group and in 65% of patients in the Soft Seal LM group. There was no difference between devices with respect to postoperative airway morbidity at 6 h or 24 h following surgery. CONCLUSIONS: All three disposable devices were clinically suitable with respect to insertion times, success rates, oxygenation, airway and leak pressures, as well as to subjective handling and postoperative airway morbidity.
Authors: Go Wun Kim; Jong Yeop Kim; Soo Jin Kim; Yeo Rae Moon; Eun Jeong Park; Sung Yong Park Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2019-01-05 Impact factor: 2.217