OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway (SLIPA; Hudson RCI), a new supraglottic airway device, with the Soft Seal Laryngeal Mask (SS-LM; Portex) when used by novices. METHODS:Thirty-six medical students with no previous airway experience, received manikin training in the use of the SLIPA and the SS-LM. Once proficient, the students inserted each device in randomized sequence, in two separate patients in the operating theatre. Only two insertion attempts per patient were allowed. Students were assessed in terms of: device preference; success or failure; success at first attempt and time to ventilation. RESULTS: Sixty-seven per cent of the students preferred to use the SLIPA (95% confidence interval 49-81%). The SLIPA was successfully inserted (one or two attempts) in 94% of patients (34/36) and the SS-LM in 89% (32/36) (P = 0.39). First attempt success rates were 83% (30/36) and 67% (24/36) in the SLIPA and SS-LM, respectively (P = 0.10). Median time to ventilation was shorter with the SLIPA (40.6 s) than with the SS-LM (66.9 s) when it was the first device used (P = 0.004), but times were similar when inserting the second device (43.8 s vs 42.9 s) (P = 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: In the present study novice users demonstrated high success rates with both devices. The SLIPA group achieved shorter times to ventilation when it was the first device they inserted, which might prove to be of clinical significance, particularly in resuscitation attempts. Although the Laryngeal Mask has gained wide recognition for use by both novice users and as a rescue airway in failed intubation, the data presented here suggest that the SLIPA might also prove useful in these areas.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway (SLIPA; Hudson RCI), a new supraglottic airway device, with the Soft Seal Laryngeal Mask (SS-LM; Portex) when used by novices. METHODS: Thirty-six medical students with no previous airway experience, received manikin training in the use of the SLIPA and the SS-LM. Once proficient, the students inserted each device in randomized sequence, in two separate patients in the operating theatre. Only two insertion attempts per patient were allowed. Students were assessed in terms of: device preference; success or failure; success at first attempt and time to ventilation. RESULTS: Sixty-seven per cent of the students preferred to use the SLIPA (95% confidence interval 49-81%). The SLIPA was successfully inserted (one or two attempts) in 94% of patients (34/36) and the SS-LM in 89% (32/36) (P = 0.39). First attempt success rates were 83% (30/36) and 67% (24/36) in the SLIPA and SS-LM, respectively (P = 0.10). Median time to ventilation was shorter with the SLIPA (40.6 s) than with the SS-LM (66.9 s) when it was the first device used (P = 0.004), but times were similar when inserting the second device (43.8 s vs 42.9 s) (P = 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: In the present study novice users demonstrated high success rates with both devices. The SLIPA group achieved shorter times to ventilation when it was the first device they inserted, which might prove to be of clinical significance, particularly in resuscitation attempts. Although the Laryngeal Mask has gained wide recognition for use by both novice users and as a rescue airway in failed intubation, the data presented here suggest that the SLIPA might also prove useful in these areas.
Authors: Yun Mi Choi; Su Man Cha; Hyun Kang; Chong Wha Baek; Yong Hun Jung; Young Cheol Woo; Jin Yun Kim; Gill Hoi Koo; Sun Gyoo Park Journal: Korean J Anesthesiol Date: 2010-05-29