Hedieh Hooshangi1, David T Wong. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To summarize the published literature related to two, new supraglottic airways (SGAs): the Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway (CobraPLA) and the Streamlined Liner of Pharyngeal Airway (SLIPA). SOURCE: We identified original articles, through searches on Medline and PubMed, using the keywords 'Cobra', 'CobraPLA', 'Cobra-PLA', 'PLA', and 'SLIPA'. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Searches identified 28 publications evaluating the CobraPLA, six of which were randomized, controlled trials. Five publications evaluated the SLIPA, two of which were randomized, controlled trials. Studies compared the CobraPLA with a number of SGAs, in regards to both efficacy and safety. While the CobraPLA is comparable to the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) Classic, with respect to insertion times and the incidence and severity of sore throat, the CobraPLA is superior, with respect to airway sealing pressure, and has been used successfully in patients with limited mouth opening and limited head extension. Insertion times, first insertion success rates, recovery times, and hemodynamic responses, associated with insertion of the SLIPA, are similar to those of the LMA Proseal. Although the SLIPA has a unique reservoir chamber to contain regurgitated fluid, the extent of its protection against pulmonary aspiration has not been established in the clinical setting. CONCLUSION: Both the CobraPLA and the SLIPA are intended for use during short procedures under general anesthesia, and have comparable efficacy and complication rates in comparison to the LMA Classic. Both airways may be considered as primary SGA devices, and the CobraPLA may be also be used as a rescue airway device.
PURPOSE: To summarize the published literature related to two, new supraglottic airways (SGAs): the Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway (CobraPLA) and the Streamlined Liner of Pharyngeal Airway (SLIPA). SOURCE: We identified original articles, through searches on Medline and PubMed, using the keywords 'Cobra', 'CobraPLA', 'Cobra-PLA', 'PLA', and 'SLIPA'. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Searches identified 28 publications evaluating the CobraPLA, six of which were randomized, controlled trials. Five publications evaluated the SLIPA, two of which were randomized, controlled trials. Studies compared the CobraPLA with a number of SGAs, in regards to both efficacy and safety. While the CobraPLA is comparable to the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) Classic, with respect to insertion times and the incidence and severity of sore throat, the CobraPLA is superior, with respect to airway sealing pressure, and has been used successfully in patients with limited mouth opening and limited head extension. Insertion times, first insertion success rates, recovery times, and hemodynamic responses, associated with insertion of the SLIPA, are similar to those of the LMA Proseal. Although the SLIPA has a unique reservoir chamber to contain regurgitated fluid, the extent of its protection against pulmonary aspiration has not been established in the clinical setting. CONCLUSION: Both the CobraPLA and the SLIPA are intended for use during short procedures under general anesthesia, and have comparable efficacy and complication rates in comparison to the LMA Classic. Both airways may be considered as primary SGA devices, and the CobraPLA may be also be used as a rescue airway device.