BACKGROUND: In March 2007, a new disposable laryngeal mask airway (LMA) became available. The LMA Supreme (The Laryngeal Mask Company Limited, St. Helier, Jersey, Channel Islands) aims to combine the LMA Fastrach feature of easy insertion with the gastric access and high oropharyngeal leak pressures of the LMA ProSeal. METHODS: The authors performed an evaluative study with the LMA Supreme, size 4, on 100 women to measure the ease of insertion, determinate the laryngeal fit by fiberoptic classification, evaluate the oropharyngeal leak pressure, and report adverse events. RESULTS: Insertion of the LMA Supreme was possible in 94 patients (94%) during the first attempt, and in 5 patients (5%) during the second attempt. In one small patient, the LMA Supreme could not be inserted because of limited pharyngeal space. This patient was excluded from further analysis. Insertion of a gastric tube was possible in all patients at the first attempt. The median time for LMA Supreme insertion was 10.0 s (+/-4.7 s; range, 8-30 s). Laryngeal fit, evaluated by fiberscopic view, was rated as optimal in all patients, both immediately after insertion of the LMA Supreme and at the end of surgery. After equalization to room pressure, the mean cuff volume needed to achieve 60 cm H2O cuff pressure was 18.4 ml (+/-3.8 ml; range, 8-31 ml). The mean oropharyngeal leak pressure at the level of 60 cm H2O cuff pressure was 28.1 cm H2O (+/-3.8 cm H2O, range, 21-35 cm H2O). Eight patients (8.1%) complained of a mild sore throat. No patient reported dysphagia or dysphonia. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical evaluation of the LMA Supreme showed easy insertion, optimal laryngeal fit, and low airway morbidity. Oropharyngeal leak pressure results were comparable to earlier data from the LMA ProSeal.
BACKGROUND: In March 2007, a new disposable laryngeal mask airway (LMA) became available. The LMA Supreme (The Laryngeal Mask Company Limited, St. Helier, Jersey, Channel Islands) aims to combine the LMA Fastrach feature of easy insertion with the gastric access and high oropharyngeal leak pressures of the LMA ProSeal. METHODS: The authors performed an evaluative study with the LMA Supreme, size 4, on 100 women to measure the ease of insertion, determinate the laryngeal fit by fiberoptic classification, evaluate the oropharyngeal leak pressure, and report adverse events. RESULTS: Insertion of the LMA Supreme was possible in 94 patients (94%) during the first attempt, and in 5 patients (5%) during the second attempt. In one small patient, the LMA Supreme could not be inserted because of limited pharyngeal space. This patient was excluded from further analysis. Insertion of a gastric tube was possible in all patients at the first attempt. The median time for LMA Supreme insertion was 10.0 s (+/-4.7 s; range, 8-30 s). Laryngeal fit, evaluated by fiberscopic view, was rated as optimal in all patients, both immediately after insertion of the LMA Supreme and at the end of surgery. After equalization to room pressure, the mean cuff volume needed to achieve 60 cm H2O cuff pressure was 18.4 ml (+/-3.8 ml; range, 8-31 ml). The mean oropharyngeal leak pressure at the level of 60 cm H2O cuff pressure was 28.1 cm H2O (+/-3.8 cm H2O, range, 21-35 cm H2O). Eight patients (8.1%) complained of a mild sore throat. No patient reported dysphagia or dysphonia. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical evaluation of the LMA Supreme showed easy insertion, optimal laryngeal fit, and low airway morbidity. Oropharyngeal leak pressure results were comparable to earlier data from the LMA ProSeal.