Literature DB >> 27380049

Randomized crossover study assessing oropharyngeal leak pressure and fiber optic positioning : Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme™ versus Laryngeal Tube LTS II™ size 2 in non-paralyzed anesthetized children.

L Gasteiger1,2, S Ofner3, B Stögermüller3, B Ziegler3, J Brimacombe4, C Keller5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: As there are currently no data available comparing the practicability of the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) Supreme™ size 2 versus the laryngeal tube LTS II™ size 2 in children, this trial was conducted to quantify the differences between these two airway devices concerning leak pressure and fiber optic-controlled positioning in non-paralyzed, anesthetized pediatric patients.
METHODS: A total of 56 children aged 1-6 years and weighing between 11 and 23 kg were enrolled in the study. Anesthesia was intravenously induced according to local standards using fentanyl and propofol. After induction of anesthesia both airway devices were inserted consecutively in accordance with the randomization protocol.
RESULTS: The mean oropharyngeal leak pressure was significantly higher for the LTS II™ (33±8 cmH2O) than for the LMA Supreme™ (21±7 cmH2O, p < 0.0001). Fiber optic position monitoring was better when the LMA Supreme™ was used (p  < 0.001). The first attempt success rates for insertion (55Supreme LMA vs. 43LTSII, p < 0.001), the insertion time (25 s Supreme LMA vs. 34 s LTSII, p < 0.04) and the frequency of bloodstaining (0Supreme LMA vs 4LTSII, p < 0.04) for the initially used device were better for the LMA Supreme™ than the laryngeal tube LTS II™.
CONCLUSION: We conclude that oropharyngeal leak pressure, fiber optic position, first attempt insertion success rate and bloodstaining differed between the LMA Supreme™ and the LTS II™ in children.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Airway management; Children; Comparative study; Difficult airway; Laryngeal mask airway

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27380049     DOI: 10.1007/s00101-016-0192-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anaesthesist        ISSN: 0003-2417            Impact factor:   1.041


  16 in total

1.  A comparison of four methods for assessing oropharyngeal leak pressure with the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) in paediatric patients.

Authors:  M Lopez-Gil; J Brimacombe; C Keller
Journal:  Paediatr Anaesth       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 2.556

2.  A randomised trial comparing the laryngeal mask airway Supreme™ with the laryngeal mask airway Unique™ in children.

Authors:  N Jagannathan; L E Sohn; A Sawardekar; E Chang; K E Langen; K Anderson
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2011-11-09       Impact factor: 6.955

3.  A comparison between Laryngeal Tube Suction II Airway and Proseal Laryngeal Mask Airway in laparascopic surgery.

Authors:  K Esa; I Azarinah; M Muhammad; M A Helmi; M Z Jaafar
Journal:  Med J Malaysia       Date:  2011-08

4.  Gum-elastic bougie-guided insertion of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: a new technique.

Authors:  A Howath; J Brimacombe; C Keller
Journal:  Anaesth Intensive Care       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 1.669

5.  Reliability of epigastric auscultation to detect gastric insufflation.

Authors:  J Brimacomb; C Keller; S Kurian; J Myles
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 9.166

6.  A proposed fiber-optic scoring system to standardize the assessment of laryngeal mask airway position.

Authors:  J Brimacombe; A Berry
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  1993-02       Impact factor: 5.108

7.  Clinical assessment of the laryngeal tube in pediatric anesthesia.

Authors:  Philippe Richebé; François Semjen; Anne-Marie Cros; Pierre Maurette
Journal:  Paediatr Anaesth       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 2.556

8.  Prospective, randomized comparison of laryngeal tube and laryngeal mask airway in pediatric patients.

Authors:  H V Genzwuerker; A Fritz; J Hinkelbein; T Finteis; A Schlaefer; M Schaeffer; E Thil; H J Rapp
Journal:  Paediatr Anaesth       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 2.556

9.  The laryngeal tube compared with the laryngeal mask: insertion, gas leak pressure and gastric insufflation.

Authors:  T Asai; A Kawashima; I Hidaka; S Kawachi
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 9.166

Review 10.  Laryngeal mask airway indications: new frontiers for second-generation supraglottic airways.

Authors:  Arnd Timmermann; Urs Adrian Bergner; Sebastian Giuseppe Russo
Journal:  Curr Opin Anaesthesiol       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 2.706

View more
  1 in total

1.  Conditions for laryngeal mask airway placement in terms of oropharyngeal leak pressure: a comparison between blind insertion and laryngoscope-guided insertion.

Authors:  Go Wun Kim; Jong Yeop Kim; Soo Jin Kim; Yeo Rae Moon; Eun Jeong Park; Sung Yong Park
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2019-01-05       Impact factor: 2.217

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.