BACKGROUND: The novel, disposable streamlined pharynx airway liner (SLIPA) has recently been introduced into clinical practice. It has no inflatable cuff, because the shape of the SLIPA closely resembles the anatomy of the pharynx. METHODS: We compared the SLIPA with the conventional laryngeal mask airway (LMA) regarding handling, safety, sealing of the pharynx, and patient comfort in 124 adult patients (ASA I-III) undergoing ophthalmic surgery under general anesthesia. RESULTS: Insertion of the SLIPA was straightforward in 88%, slightly difficult in 10%, and obviously difficult in 0% of cases. The SLIPA could not be inserted in 2% of patients. In the LMA group, insertion was straightforward in 90%, slightly difficult in 8%, obviously difficult in 2%, and a failure in 0% of patients. Maximum seal pressure was 24 +/- 6 mm H2O with the SLIPA and 24 +/- 4 mm H2O with the LMA. Gastric air insufflation was noticed in 19% of patients in the SLIPA group and 3% in the LMA group (P < 0.05). No regurgitation of gastric contents was observed. Removal of the airway was uneventful in all cases. Blood traces were noted on the surface of the device in 20% in the SLIPA versus 11% (n.s.) in the LMA group. Complaints of a sore throat were recorded in 2% vs. 14% in the SLIPA and the LMA group, respectively. CONCLUSION: The SLIPA is a useful alternative to the conventional LMA in patients undergoing minor surgery. However, it is associated with a higher incidence of gastric air insufflation, which may increase the risk of aspiration.
BACKGROUND: The novel, disposable streamlined pharynx airway liner (SLIPA) has recently been introduced into clinical practice. It has no inflatable cuff, because the shape of the SLIPA closely resembles the anatomy of the pharynx. METHODS: We compared the SLIPA with the conventional laryngeal mask airway (LMA) regarding handling, safety, sealing of the pharynx, and patient comfort in 124 adult patients (ASA I-III) undergoing ophthalmic surgery under general anesthesia. RESULTS: Insertion of the SLIPA was straightforward in 88%, slightly difficult in 10%, and obviously difficult in 0% of cases. The SLIPA could not be inserted in 2% of patients. In the LMA group, insertion was straightforward in 90%, slightly difficult in 8%, obviously difficult in 2%, and a failure in 0% of patients. Maximum seal pressure was 24 +/- 6 mm H2O with the SLIPA and 24 +/- 4 mm H2O with the LMA. Gastric air insufflation was noticed in 19% of patients in the SLIPA group and 3% in the LMA group (P < 0.05). No regurgitation of gastric contents was observed. Removal of the airway was uneventful in all cases. Blood traces were noted on the surface of the device in 20% in the SLIPA versus 11% (n.s.) in the LMA group. Complaints of a sore throat were recorded in 2% vs. 14% in the SLIPA and the LMA group, respectively. CONCLUSION: The SLIPA is a useful alternative to the conventional LMA in patients undergoing minor surgery. However, it is associated with a higher incidence of gastric air insufflation, which may increase the risk of aspiration.
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