Literature DB >> 30953222

A prospective randomized comparison of airway seal using the novel vision-guided insertion of LMA-Supreme® and LMA-Protector®.

André A J van Zundert1,2, Kerstin H Wyssusek3, Anita Pelecanos4, Michelle Roets3, Chandra M Kumar5,6.   

Abstract

The laryngeal mask airways supreme (LMA-Supreme™) and protector (LMA-Protector™) are generally placed blindly, often resulting in a less than optimal position and vision-guided placement has been recommended. This prospective, randomized controlled study compared the efficacy of airway seal by measuring the oropharyngeal leak pressure in 100 surgical patients who underwent a variety of non-thoracic surgery under general anaesthesia, suitable with a supraglottic airway device. Patients were allocated to either the LMA-Supreme (n = 50) or LMA-Protector (n = 50) group. All insertions were performed under vision of a videolaryngoscope using an 'insert-detect-correct-as-you-go' technique with standardized corrective measures. Our primary endpoint, mean oropharyngeal leak pressure, was significantly higher in the LMA-Protector (31.7 ± 2.9 cm H2O) compared to the LMA-Supreme (27.7 ± 3.5 cm H2O) group (mean difference 4.0 cm H2O, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.7-5.3 cm H2O, p < 0.001) after achieving a near-optimal fibreoptic position in the LMA-Protector (94%) and LMA-Supreme (96%) groups. No statistically significant differences were shown for secondary outcomes of alignment, number of insertion attempts and malpositions, and final anatomical position as scored by fibreoptic evaluation. Corrective manoeuvres were required in virtually all patients to obtain a correct anatomically positioned LMA. Position outcomes of the two devices were similar except for the proportion of procedures with folds in the proximal cuff (90% LMA-Supreme vs. 2% LMA-Protector, p < 0.001), the need for intracuff pressure adjustments (80% LMA-Supreme vs. 48% LMA-Protector, p = 0.001) and size correction (18% LMA-Supreme vs. 4% LMA-Protector, p = 0.025). In conclusion, a higher oropharyngeal leak pressure can be achieved with LMA-Protector compared to LMA-Supreme with optimal anatomical position when insertion is vision-guided.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Airway; LMA-Protector; LMA-Supreme; Oropharyngeal leak pressure; Supraglottic airway device; Video-laryngoscopy

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30953222     DOI: 10.1007/s10877-019-00301-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput        ISSN: 1387-1307            Impact factor:   2.502


  22 in total

1.  Comparison of clinical performance of size 1.5 Supreme™ LMA and Proseal™ LMA among Asian children: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Sook Hui Chaw; Ina I Shariffuddin; Li Lian Foo; Pui Kuan Lee; Ramona Maya Paran; Peak Chee Cheang; Lucy Chan
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 2.502

2.  Assessment of airway visualization: validation of the percentage of glottic opening (POGO) scale.

Authors:  R M Levitan; E A Ochroch; S Kush; F S Shofer; J E Hollander
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 3.451

3.  Use of the Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) Protector™ for shoulder surgeries in beach-chair position.

Authors:  Leng Zoo Tan; Daryl J A Tan; Edwin Seet
Journal:  J Clin Anesth       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 9.452

4.  Vision-guided placement of supraglottic airway device prevents airway obstruction: a prospective audit.

Authors:  A A J Van Zundert; S P Gatt; C M Kumar; T C R V Van Zundert
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 9.166

5.  Comparison of four methods for assessing airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in adult patients.

Authors:  C Keller; J R Brimacombe; K Keller; R Morris
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 9.166

6.  Comparison of the laryngeal mask airway supreme and the i-gel in paralysed elderly patients: A randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Myoung H Kim; Jae H Lee; Yong S Choi; Sujung Park; Seokyung Shin
Journal:  Eur J Anaesthesiol       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 4.330

7.  A preliminary assessment of the LMA protector™ in non-paralysed patients.

Authors:  Ban Leong Sng; Farida Binte Ithnin; Deepak Mathur; Eileen Lew; Nian-Lin Reena Han; Alex Tiong-Heng Sia
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2017-02-20       Impact factor: 2.217

8.  Only with an optimal position of the supraglottic airway in situ, valid conclusions can be drawn about oropharyngeal airway pressure.

Authors:  André Aj Van Zundert; Kerstin H Wyssusek
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2018-03

9.  Laryngeal mask airway protector™: Advanced uses for laparoscopic cholecystectomies.

Authors:  Leng Zoo Tan; Daryl Jian'An Tan; Edwin Seet
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2017-08

10.  Laryngeal Mask Airway Protector™ for intubation and extubation in thyroid surgeries: A case report.

Authors:  Leng Zoo Tan; Daryl Jian An Tan; Edwin Seet
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2018-07
View more
  7 in total

1.  Features of new vision-incorporated third-generation video laryngeal mask airways.

Authors:  André A J Van Zundert; Stephen P Gatt; Tom C R V Van Zundert; Chandra M Kumar; Jaideep J Pandit
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2021-12-17       Impact factor: 1.977

2.  The frequency of gastroesophageal reflux when radiofrequency catheter ablation procedures for atrial fibrillation under general anesthesia with a supraglottic device: Observational pilot study.

Authors:  Jin Hee Ahn; Jiyeon Park; Jae Seong Jo; Sung Hyun Lee; Young Keun On; Kyoung-Min Park; Eun Jeong Oh; Justin Sangwook Ko; Ji Seon Jeong
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-02-12       Impact factor: 1.817

3.  LMA® protector™ in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries: a multicenter prospective observational study.

Authors:  Yanhong Liu; Yuxiang Song; Miaomiao Wang; Meihua Yang; Hao Shen; Zhen Wang; Liyong Chen; Jianjun Yang; Shengkai Gong; Yonghao Yu; Zhao Shi; Wei Zhang; Xuli Zou; Xude Sun; Yuan Wang; Qiang Fu; Jiangbei Cao; Weidong Mi
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2021-12-20       Impact factor: 2.217

4.  Comparison of the efficacy of Macintosh laryngoscope-guided insertion of I-gel™ with the conventional blind insertion technique - A randomised study.

Authors:  Ankit Vyas; Pooja Bihani; Rishabh Jaju; Naveen Paliwal; Mathura L Tak; Usha Choudhary
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2022-06-21

5.  Comparison of videolaryngoscope-guided versus standard digital insertion techniques of the ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Ulku Ozgul; Feray Akgul Erdil; Mehmet Ali Erdogan; Zekine Begec; Cemil Colak; Aytac Yucel; Mahmut Durmus
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2019-12-30       Impact factor: 2.217

6.  The case for a 3rd generation supraglottic airway device facilitating direct vision placement.

Authors:  André A J Van Zundert; Chandra M Kumar; Tom C R V Van Zundert; Stephen P Gatt; Jaideep J Pandit
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2020-06-15       Impact factor: 2.502

7.  Canadian Airway Focus Group updated consensus-based recommendations for management of the difficult airway: part 1. Difficult airway management encountered in an unconscious patient.

Authors:  J Adam Law; Laura V Duggan; Mathieu Asselin; Paul Baker; Edward Crosby; Andrew Downey; Orlando R Hung; Philip M Jones; François Lemay; Rudiger Noppens; Matteo Parotto; Roanne Preston; Nick Sowers; Kathryn Sparrow; Timothy P Turkstra; David T Wong; George Kovacs
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  2021-06-18       Impact factor: 5.063

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.