OBJECTIVE: This prospective randomised study was designed to compare the Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) Classic, LMA Fastrach and LMA Supreme regarding ease of insertion and insertion time as primary outcomes and reposition, success rate of trials, effects on haemodynamic parameters, provision of an adequate and safe airway, amount of leakage and oropharyngeal and systemic complications as secondary outcomes. METHODS: In this clinical trial, 90 patients aged 18-70 years of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) group I-II were randomised into three groups as providing airway via LMA Classic, LMA Fastrach or LMA Supreme instead of tracheal intubation. No muscle relaxant was used. The allocated LMA was inserted by the same anaesthetist; bispectral index (BIS) was between 40% and 60%. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference among the groups regarding the ease of insertion and insertion time as primary outcomes; the incidence of repositioning during placement was significantly higher in the LMA Classic group than that in other groups (p<0.05) and the rates of bloodstain on the device as well as oropharyngeal mucosal oedema were higher in the LMA Fastrach group than those in other groups (p<0.05) as secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: We suggest that LMA Classic, LMA Supreme and LMA Fastrach had similar effectiveness regarding efficiency and airway safety. However, LMA Supreme seems to be more advantageous as it is more appropriate for fewer oropharyngeal complications and there was no repositioning.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: This prospective randomised study was designed to compare the Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) Classic, LMA Fastrach and LMA Supreme regarding ease of insertion and insertion time as primary outcomes and reposition, success rate of trials, effects on haemodynamic parameters, provision of an adequate and safe airway, amount of leakage and oropharyngeal and systemic complications as secondary outcomes. METHODS: In this clinical trial, 90 patients aged 18-70 years of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) group I-II were randomised into three groups as providing airway via LMA Classic, LMA Fastrach or LMA Supreme instead of tracheal intubation. No muscle relaxant was used. The allocated LMA was inserted by the same anaesthetist; bispectral index (BIS) was between 40% and 60%. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference among the groups regarding the ease of insertion and insertion time as primary outcomes; the incidence of repositioning during placement was significantly higher in the LMA Classic group than that in other groups (p<0.05) and the rates of bloodstain on the device as well as oropharyngeal mucosal oedema were higher in the LMA Fastrach group than those in other groups (p<0.05) as secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: We suggest that LMA Classic, LMA Supreme and LMA Fastrach had similar effectiveness regarding efficiency and airway safety. However, LMA Supreme seems to be more advantageous as it is more appropriate for fewer oropharyngeal complications and there was no repositioning.