The Laryngeal Mask Airway SupremeTM- a single use laryngeal mask airway with an oesophageal vent. A randomised, cross-over study with the Laryngeal Mask Airway ProSealTMin paralysed, anaesthetised patients

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of the Baska mask versus other laryngeal mask airways during general anaesthesia

BACKGROUND

The Baska mask is a supraglottic airway device used during general anaesthesia that combines features from various other devices. This systematic review aims to compare its efficacy and safety with other laryngeal mask airways.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials were identified by searching PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library. RevMan software was used for meta-analysis, with mean difference and risk ratios calculated for continuous and dichotomous data, respectively, along with a 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis found that the Baska mask provides a better oropharyngeal seal pressure (mean difference = 7.03; 95% confidence interval = [6.00, 8.07], p < 0.00001) and a higher rate of maximal seal pressure (risk ratio = 18.38; 95% confidence interval = [2.53, 133.47], p = 0.004) compared to other laryngeal mask airways. However, the Baska mask had lower success rates in first-attempt insertion (risk ratio = 0.79; 95% confidence interval = [0.72, 0.86], p < 0.00001) and higher rates of insertion manipulation (risk ratio = 16.64; 95% confidence interval = [5.86, 47.24], p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

The Baska mask offers better oropharyngeal seal pressure, but may be more difficult to insert than other laryngeal mask airways, without causing significant delays. The Baska mask appears as safe as other laryngeal mask airways, but larger trials are needed to support these findings.

To compare the influence of blind insertion and up-down optimized glottic exposure manoeuvre on oropharyngeal leak pressure using SaCoVLM™ video laryngeal mask among patients undergoing general anesthesia

To compare the potential influences of blind insertion and up-down optimized glottic exposure manoeuvre on the oropharyngeal leak pressure (OPLP) in using SaCoVLM™ video laryngeal mask (VLM) among patients undergoing general anesthesia. A randomized self-control study controlled was conducted to investigate the effect of two insertion techniques on OPLP. A total of 60 patients (male or female, 18-78 years, BMI 18.0-30.0 kg m-2 and ASA I-II) receiving selective surgery under general anesthesia were randomly recruited. After induction of anesthesia, the SaCoVLM™ was inserted by blind insertion manoeuvre. The glottic exposure grading(V1) of the SaCoVLM™ visual laryngeal mask and the OPLP(P1) were recorded. And the glottic exposure grading(V2) and OPLP(P2) of SaCoVLM™ were recorded again when the glottic exposure grading was optimal. The glottis exposure grading and OPLP were compared before and after different insertion manoeuver. The glottic exposure grading (V2) obtained by using up-down optimized glottic exposure manoeuvre was better than that obtained by using blind insertion manoeuvre (V1)(P < 0.001). The OPLP was significantly lower in the blind insertion manoeuvre (P1) than in the up-down optimized glottic exposure manoeuvre (P2) (32.4 ± 5.0 cmH2O vs. 36.3 ± 5.2 cmH2O, P < 0.001). In using SaCoVLM™, higher OPLP and better glottic exposure grading were achieved through up-down optimized glottic exposure manoeuvre, protecting the airway while real-time monitoring of conditions around the glottis, which significantly improves airway safety. Our results suggests that up-down optimized glottic exposure manoeuver may be a useful technique for SaCoVLM™ insertion.Trial registration: ChiCTR, ChiCTR2000028802. Registered 4 January 2020, http://www.chictr.org.cn/ChiCTR2000028802.

Evaluation of the New SingularityTM Air versus Ambu® Aura GainTM: A Randomized, Crossover Mannequin Study

Background: This randomised crossover mannequin study aimed to compare the insertion time for the newly developed SingularityTM Air and the Ambu® AuraGainTM. The SingularityTM Air includes a bendable tube in order to allow optimal passform. Methods: Fifty anaesthetists with a minimum of 100 supraglottic airway device insertions were recruited and randomly assigned to start either with the SingularityTM Air or with the Ambu® AuraGainTM. Participants watched a tutorial video the day before the assessment and received a standardized introduction immediately before the assessment. The primary outcome was the time for successful insertion. Secondary parameters were the overall insertion success rate, the numbers of insertion attempts (maximum three), the glottic view through a flexible bronchoscope, and the success rate for gastric tube insertion. Results: Fifty participants were eventually recruited and randomly assigned to insert both devices according to the randomization. The insertion time was 24 s for SingularityTM Air as compared to 20 s for Ambu® AuraGainTM (p < 0.001). Overall insertion rate was 92% for the SingularityTM Air as compared to 100% for the Ambu® AuraGainTM (p could not be derived as one variable is a constant). The primary insertion success rate was better for the Ambu® AuraGainTM than for the SingularityTM Air (94% versus 68%; p: 0.002, respectively). Conclusion: The time for successful insertion and the insertion success rate for the newly developed SingularityTM Air is inferior to that for the Ambu® AuraGainTM.

Preliminary evaluation of SaCoVLM™ video laryngeal mask airway in airway management for general anesthesia

Background

To preliminary evaluate the application of SaCoVLM™ video laryngeal mask airway in airway management of general anesthesia.

Methods

We recruited 100 adult patients (ages 18–78 years, male 19, female 81, weight 48–90 kg) with normal predicted airway (Mallampati I ~ II, unrestricted mouth opening, normal head and neck mobility) and ASA I-II who required general anaesthesia. The SaCoVLM™ was inserted after anesthesia induction and connected with the anesthesia machine for ventilation. Our primary outcome was glottic visualization grades. Secondary outcomes included seal pressure, success rate of insertion, intraoperative findings (gastric reflux and contraposition), gastric drainage and 24-h complications after operation.

Results

The laryngeal inlet was exposed in all the patients and shown on the video after SaCoVLM™ insertion. The status of glottic visualization was classified: grade 1 in 55 cases, grade 2 in 23 cases, grade 3 in 14 cases and grade 4 in 8 cases. The first-time success rate of SaCoVLM™ insertion was 95% (95% CI = 0.887 to 0.984), and the total success rate was 96% (95% CI = 0.901 to 0.989). The sealing pressure of SaCoVLM™ was 34.1 ± 6.2 cmH₂O and the gastric drainage were smooth. Only a small number of patients developed mild complications after SaCoVLM™ was removed (such as blood stains on SaCoVLM™ and sore throat).

Conclusions

The SaCoVLM™ can visualize partial or whole laryngeal inlets during the surgery, with a high success rate, a high sealing pressure and smooth gastroesophageal drainage. SaCoVLM™ could be a promise new effective supraglottic device to airway management during general anesthesia.

Trial registration

ChiCTR,ChiCTR2000028802.Registered 4 January 2020.

Laryngeal mask airway protector generates higher oropharyngeal leak pressures compared to the laryngeal mask airway supreme: A randomized clinical trial in the ambulatory surgery unit

Background and Aims

The Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) Protector™ is one of the latest introduced supraglottic airway devices. It provides access and functional separation of the respiratory and digestive tracts. Compared to the LMA Supreme™, it has two digestive ports, one to provide suction in the pharyngeal region and one for gastric tube insertion. High oropharyngeal leak pressure is a marker for safe ventilation when using LMA devices. We hypothesized that oropharyngeal leak pressure of the LMA Protector™ is 5 cm H₂O higher than the oropharyngeal leak pressure of the LMA Supreme™ at various cuff volumes. Secondary outcome measures were ease of insertion of both masks, fiberoptic confirmation of correct positioning, failures of insertion, presence of blood staining, sore throat, presence of air leak and insertion time.

Material and Methods

American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-III patients aged >18 years, scheduled for elective minor ambulatory surgery under general anesthesia with a LMA were included. Patients were randomized in the LMA Protector™ or LMA Supreme™ group based on a computer-generated random sequence table. After general anesthesia induction, oropharyngeal leak pressures were measured.

Results

Oropharyngeal leak pressures were significantly higher (P < 0.0001) for LMA Protector™ compared to LMA Supreme™ at different cuff volumes and a cuff pressure of 65 cm H₂O. Insertion time was significantly higher for the LMA Protector™ (29 sec) [interquartile range (IQR) 23, 35] compared to the LMA Supreme™ (19 sec) (IQR 16, 22) (P < 0.0001). There were no statistically significant differences in ease of insertion (number of attempts for succesful positioning), failures of insertion, presence of blood staining, sore throat or presence of air leak.

Conclusion

Oropharyngeal leak pressures were consistently higher (>5 cm H₂O) for LMA Protector™ compared to LMA Supreme™. LMA Protector™, therefore, allows effective ventilation at higher airway pressures than LMA Supreme™.

Trial Registration

http://clinicaltrials.gov.NCT03462550.

Head elevation and laryngeal mask airway Supreme insertion: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

A laryngeal mask airway (LMA) is usually inserted by conventional 7 cm head elevation. However, little is known about the association of head elevation degree and LMA insertion. We hypothesized that 14 cm head elevation would increase the first attempt success rate of LMA Supreme insertion compared with conventional 7 cm head elevation in patients undergoing transurethral resection of bladder tumour.

METHODS

Patients were randomly allocated to the high group (n = 55, 14 cm head elevation) or the control group (n = 55, conventional 7 cm head elevation). The primary outcome was the first attempt success rate of LMA Supreme insertion.

RESULTS

The first attempt success rate was significantly higher in the high group than in the control group (53 [96.4%] vs 40 [72.7%], P = .001, relative risk = 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.12-1.57, absolute risk reduction = 23.7%). Fibreoptic bronchoscope grade 4 (ie optimal position of the LMA) was significantly higher in the high group (35 [64.8%] vs 18 [36.7%], P = .004, relative risk = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.16-2.68, absolute risk reduction = 30.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Head elevation of 14 cm height increased the first attempt success rate of LMA Supreme insertion and fibreoptic bronchoscopic grade in patients undergoing transurethral resection of bladder tumour. High head elevation can be an effective option for successful LMA Supreme insertion. Trial Registry Number: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04229862).

Comparison of airway management without neuromuscular blockers in laparoscopic gynecological surgery

New generation supraglottic airway devices are suitable for airway management in many laparoscopic surgeries. In this study, we evaluated and compared the ventilation parameters of the laryngeal mask airway-supreme (LM-S) and endotracheal tube (ETT) when a neuromuscular blocker (NMB) agent was not used during laparoscopic gynecological surgery. The second outcome was based on the evaluation of the surgical view because it may affect the surgical procedure.This was a randomized study that enrolled 100 patients between 18 and 65 years old with an ASA I-II classification. Patients were divided into 2 groups: Group ETT and Group LM-S. Standard anesthesia and ventilation protocols were administered to patients in each group. Ventilation parameters [airway peak pressure (Ppeak), mean airway pressure (Pmean), total volume, and oropharyngeal leak pressure] were recorded before, after, and during peritoneal insufflation and before desufflation, as well as after the removal of the airway device. Perioperative surgical view quality and the adequacy of the pneumoperitoneum were also recorded.The data of 100 patients were included in the statistical analysis. The Ppeak values in Group ETT were significantly higher in the second minute after airway device insertion. The Ppeak and Pmean values in Group ETT were significantly higher before desufflation and after removal of the airway device. No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of adequacy of the pneumoperitoneum or quality of the surgical view.The results of this study showed that gynecological laparoscopies can be performed without using a NMB. Satisfactory conditions for ventilation and surgery can be achieved while sparing the use of muscle relaxants in both groups despite the Trendelenburg position and the pneumoperitoneum of the patients, which are typical for laparoscopic gynecological surgery. The results are of clinical significance because they show that the use of a muscle relaxant is unnecessary when supraglottic airways are used for these surgical procedures.

Comparison and evaluation of single-use LMA supreme versus the reusable proseal LMA in paralyzed patients undergoing surgery with controlled ventilation

Background and Aims:

The objective of this prospective randomized blinded study was to assess the safety and efficacy of the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) Supreme as compared with the LMA Proseal.

Material and Methods:

A total of 60 patients were randomised into two groups to either receive a Proseal LMA (PLMA) or Supreme LMA (SLMA) for airway management. The primary outcome was to measure oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) in both groups. The secondary outcomes were the measurement of insertion time, insertion success rate, fibreoptic grading, intracuff pressure, ease of ventilation, and airway pressure on standard ventilatory settings and postoperative complications.

Results:

Intracuff pressure increase after 60 minutes of induction was significantly higher in the PLMA group (PLMA 97.43 ± 11.03 cm of H₂O and SLMA 75.17 ± 8.95 cm of H₂O). OLP was recorded after device insertion, after 30 min and after 60 min in each group and was found to be 28.71 ± 2.97, 30.93 ± 2.87, and 31.93 ± 2.72 cm of H₂O in PLMA and 24.84 ± 2.08, 26.73 ± 2.26, and 27.95 ± 2.55 cm of H₂O in SLMA group, respectively. The mean OLP with the SLMA was significantly (p=<.001) lower than PLMA. All the other parameters were comparable in both groups.

Conclusion:

PLMA is better than SLMA as airway device to ventilate at higher airway pressure in paralyzed adult patients. On the basis of our study, we recommend Proseal over Supreme LMA.

Comparison of LM-Supreme™ and endotracheal tube in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery

While laryngeal mask is widely used for laparoscopic interventions in some countries, concerns exist regarding pulmonary aspiration and inadequate ventilation. We compared the LM-Supreme™ (LM-S) with the endotracheal tube (ETT) for laparoscopic gynecological interventions in terms of ventilation parameters and gastric distention. This prospective randomized and double-blind study. The patients were divided into two groups: ETT (n = 50) and LM-S group (n = 50). All patients in the LM-S and ETT groups recieved total intravenous general anaesthesia and standard ventilation protocols. Ventilation parameters (airway peak pressure, mean airway pressure, end-tidal carbon dioxide, total volume, oropharyngeal leak pressure) and perioperative laryngopharyngeal morbidity were recorded before peritoneal insufflation, during and after the peroperative period. The mean airway pressure values in the ETT group 2 min after airway device insertion were significantly higher. The gastric distension after the laparoscope entered the abdomen in the LM-S group was found to be significantly lower. In the first hour postoperative sore throat, disphonia and dysphagia were statistically significantly higher in the ETT group. In our study we concluded that LM-S provides reliable endotracheal intubation in ASA I & II patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery under positive pressure ventilation.ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02127632.

Supreme™ laryngeal mask airway insertion requires a lower concentration of sevoflurane than ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway insertion during target-controlled remifentanil infusion: a prospective randomised controlled study

Background

ProSeal (PLMA) and Supreme (SLMA) laryngeal mask airways are effective ventilator devices with distinctive designs that may require different anaesthetics for insertion. Sevoflurane induction provides acceptable conditions for laryngeal mask insertion, and remifentanil significantly decreases the minimum alveolar concentration of sevoflurane required for that insertion. The study aimed to evaluate the optimal end-tidal (ET) sevoflurane concentration for successful insertion of PLMA versus SLMA in patients receiving a remifentanil infusion without a neuromuscular blocking agent.

Methods

Altogether, 45 patients ASA (American Society Anaesthesiologists) physical status I–II, aged 18–60 years were scheduled for elective ambulatory surgery. Exclusion criteria were a difficult airway, recent respiratory infection, reactive airway, obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome, gastric aspiration’s risk factors, pregnancy, and lactation. Patients were randomly allocated to receive the SLMA or the PLMA. Sevoflurane induction with co-administration of remifentanil was performed at an effect-site concentration of 4 ng mL^− 1. ET₅₀ was calculated with a modified Dixon’s up-and-down method (starting at 2.5% in steps of 0.5%). Predetermined sevoflurane concentration was kept constant during the 10 min before LMA insertion. Patient’s response to LMA insertion was classified as “movement” or “no movement”. Sevoflurane ET₅₀ was determined as the midpoint concentration of all the independent pairs that manifested crossover from “movement” to “no movement”.

Results

The ET₅₀ sevoflurane concentration co-administered with remifentanil required for PLMA insertion was 1.20 ± 0.41% (95% confidence interval 0.76 to 1.63%). For SLMA insertion, it was 0.55 ± 0.38% (95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.95%) (p = 0.019).

Conclusions

The end-tidal sevoflurane concentration with co-administered remifentanil required to allow insertion of the SLMA was 54% lower than that needed for inserting the PLMA.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03003377. Retrospectively registered. Date of registration: December 28, 2016.

Oropharyngeal leak pressure of the LMA Protector™ vs the LMA Supreme™; a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Clinical characteristics such as oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) and ventilation peak pressure are important factors for successful use of supraglottic airway devices in general anaesthesia. We hypothesized that the LMA Protector™ compared to the LMA Supreme™ may develop a higher OLP, which could be of clinical significance.

METHODS

Ninety-six patients were randomized to the LMA Protector™ or LMA Supreme™ groups. We measured oropharyngeal leak pressure within 5 minutes after insertion of the supraglottic airway device with a standardized cuff pressure at 60 cm H₂ O. Secondary parameters, such as insertion time of the supraglottic airway device, the number of attempts inserting the supraglottic airway device and the gastric tube, volume of gastric contents, and maximum airway pressure, as well as pulse oximetry throughout the operation were measured. Further, blood staining after removal of the supraglottic airway device and postoperative airway morbidity 3 hours after surgery were determined.

RESULTS

The mean difference of oropharyngeal leak pressure was 5.2 (95% CI 2.8-7.6), ie, 30.9 (7.4) cmH₂ O for the LMA Protector™ vs 25.6 (4.4) cmH₂ O for the LMA Supreme™ (P < 0.001; mean(SD)). Similarly, there was a mean difference between OLP and maximal ventilation peak pressure 5.6 (95% CI 3.1-8.2) ie 19.6 (7.7) cmH₂ O for the LMA Protector™ vs 14.0 (4.4) cmH₂ O for the LMA Supreme™ (P < 0.001). No difference was found between the groups for other secondary parameters, as well as postoperative airway morbidity.

CONCLUSION

The LMA Protector™ enabled a higher OLP compared to the LMA Supreme™. This finding may be important for patients requiring a higher peak pressure for sufficient supraglottic airway device ventilation.

Fiberoptic intubation of severely obese patients through supraglottic airway: A prospective, randomized trial of the Ambu® AuraGain™ laryngeal mask vs the i-gel™ airway

INTRODUCTION

Airway management in severely obese patients remains a challenging issue for anaesthetists and may lead to life-threatening situations. Supraglottic airway devices, such as the i-gel™ or the AuraGain™, were developed, with the possibility to ventilate the patient or use them as a conduit for endotracheal intubation.

METHODS

In our randomized prospective trial, we hypothesized a 10 seconds faster fiberoptic trans-device intubation time through the AuraGain™ laryngeal mask compared to the i-gel™ laryngeal mask in severely obese patients. We randomly assigned 44 patients to the AuraGain or i-gel group and measured trans-device intubation time after 5 minutes of successful ventilation through the device. Secondary parameters relating to the trans-device intubation success, oropharyngeal leak pressure, and parameters regarding insertion of the supraglottic airway devices were measured. Postoperative airway morbidity was determined 5 hours after surgery.

RESULTS

Mean (SD) intubation time was 55.7 (5.8) seconds for the AuraGain™ vs 54.1 (8.5) for i-gel™ mask (95% CI -2.7 to 5.9; P = 0.474), respectively, on a mean body mass index (BMI) of 39.4 kg/m² in the AuraGain™ group vs 38.9 kg/m² in i-gel™ group. No difference could be found in the other studied parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Time for intubation through both supraglottic airway devices was similar. Attributed to fast possibility of securing the airway with both supraglottic airway devices, we believe that both, AuraGain™ and i-gel™, can be a good alternative in the airway management in obese patients.

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

Background

Insertion under laryngoscopic guidance has been used to achieve ideal positioning of the laryngeal mask airway (LMA). However, to date, the efficacy of this technique has been evaluated only using fiberoptic evaluation, and the results have been conflicting. Other reliable tests to evaluate the efficacy of this technique have not been established. Recently, it has been suggested that the accuracy of LMA placement can be determined by clinical signs such as oropharyngeal leak pressure (OPLP). The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of LMA insertion under laryngoscopic guidance using OPLP as an indicator.

Methods

After approved by the institutional ethics committee, a prospective comparison of 100 patients divided into 2 groups (50 with blind technique and 50 with the laryngoscope technique) were evaluated. An LMA (LarySeal™, Flexicare medical Ltd., UK) was inserted using the blind approach in the blind insertion group and using laryngoscopy in the laryngoscope-guided insertion group. The OPLP, fiberoptic position score, whether the first attempt at LMA insertion was successful, time taken for insertion, ease of LMA insertion, and adverse airway events were recorded.

Results

Data were presented as mean ± standard deviation. The OPLP was higher in the laryngoscope-guided insertion group than in the blind insertion group (21.4 ± 8.6 cmH₂O vs. 18.1 ± 6.1 cmH₂O, p = 0.031). The fiberoptic position score, rate of success in the first attempt, ease of insertion, and pharyngolaryngeal adverse events were similar between both groups. The time taken for insertion of the LMA was significantly longer in the laryngoscope-guided insertion group, compared to blind insertion group (35.9 ± 9.5 s vs. 28.7 ± 9.5 s, p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Laryngoscope-guided insertion of LMA improves the airway seal pressure compared to blind insertion. Our result suggests that it may be a useful technique for LMA insertion.

Trial registration

cris.nih.go.kr, identifier: KCT0001945 (2016-06-17).

A comparative evaluation of ProSeal laryngeal mask airway, I-gel and Supreme laryngeal mask airway in adult patients undergoing elective surgery: A randomised trial

Background and Aims

Second-generation supraglottic airway devices are widely used in current anaesthesia practice. This randomised study was undertaken to evaluate and compare laryngeal mask airway: ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (PLMA), Supreme laryngeal mask airway (SLMA) and I-gel.

Methods

Eighty-four adult patients undergoing elective surgery were randomly allocated to three groups: group P (PLMA), group I (I-gel) and group S (SLMA) of 28 patients each. Insertion times, number of insertion attempts, haemodynamic response to insertion, ease of insertion of airway device and gastric tube, oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) and pharyngolaryngeal morbidity were assessed. The primary outcome measure was the OLP after successful device insertion. Statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 18.0 software using Chi-squared/Fisher's exact test (categorical data) and analysis of variance (continuous data) tests. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

The demographic profile of patients was comparable. OLP measured after insertion, 30 minutes later and at the end of surgery differed significantly between the three groups (P < 0.001). The mean OLP was 32.64 ± 4.14 cm·H₂O in group P and 29.79 ± 3.70 cm·H₂O in group S. In group I, the mean OLP after insertion was 26.71 ± 3.45 cm H₂O, which increased to 27.36 ± 3.22 cm H₂O at 30 minutes and to 27.50 ± 3.24 cm H₂O towards the end of surgery. However, these increases were not statistically significant (P = 0.641). Device insertion time was longest for group P (P = 0.001) and gastric tube insertion time was longest for group I (P = 0.001). Haemodynamic response to insertion and pharyngolaryngeal morbidity were similar with all three devices.

Conclusion

PLMA provides better sealing pressure but takes longer to insert. I-gel and SLMA have similar sealing pressures. I-gel insertion time is quicker.

Comparison of the clinical performance of i-gel, LMA Supreme and LMA ProSeal in elective surgery

INTRODUCTION

The LMA Supreme™, i-gel® and LMA ProSeal™ are second-generation supraglottic airway devices. We tested the hypothesis that these devices differ in performance when used for spontaneous ventilation during anaesthesia.

METHODS

150 patients who underwent general anaesthesia for elective surgery were randomly allocated into three groups. Data was collected on oropharyngeal leak pressures, ease and duration of device insertion, ease of gastric tube insertion, and airway safety.

RESULTS

Leak pressure, our primary outcome measure, was found to be higher for the i-gel than the Supreme and ProSeal (mean ± standard error of the mean: 27.31 ± 0.92 cmH2O, 23.60 ± 0.70 cmH2O and 24.44 ± 0.70 cmH2O, respectively; p = 0.003). Devices were inserted on the first attempt for 90%, 82% and 72% of patients in the i-gel, Supreme and ProSeal groups, respectively (p = 0.105); mean device placement times were 23.58 seconds, 25.10 seconds and 26.34 seconds, respectively (p = 0.477). Gastric tubes were inserted on the first attempt in 100% of patients in the Supreme group, and 94% of patients in the i-gel and ProSeal groups (p = 0.100). There was blood staining on removal in 9 (18%) patients in each of the Supreme and ProSeal groups, with none in the i-gel group (p = 0.007). The incidence of postoperative sore throat, dysphagia and hoarseness was lowest for the i-gel.

CONCLUSION

The three devices were comparable in terms of ease and duration of placement, but the i-gel had higher initial oropharyngeal leak pressure and lower airway morbidity compared with the ProSeal and Supreme.

Comparative Study of Two Laryngeal Mask Airways: Proseal Laryngeal Mask Airway and Supreme Laryngeal Mask Airway in Anesthetized Paralyzed Adults Undergoing Elective Surgery

Context:

Supraglottic airway devices can act as an alternative to endotracheal intubation in both normal and difficult airway. LMA Proseal (P-LMA) and LMA Supreme (S-LMA) alongwith acting as effective ventilating device, provide port for gastric drainage.

Aim:

The objective of this study was to compare the two devices for effective ventilation and complications.

Setting and Design:

A prospective, randomized, single-blinded study was conducted in a tertiary care teaching hospital. Methods: 100 patients of ASA grade I–II undergoing elective surgery under general anaesthesia were included after ethical committee clearance and written consent. Patients were randomly allocated size 4 P-LMA (Group P) or S-LMA (Group S) (50 patients in each group). Insertion attempt, insertion time, oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) and complications were compared.

Results:

There was no difference demographically. The first insertion attempts were successful in 92% with P-LMA and 96% with S-LMA. Insertion time was faster in S-LMA. The mean OLP was 24.04 cmH2O in Group P and 20.05 cmH2O in Group S. Complications were cough, mild blood staining.

Conclusion:

Both can act as an effective ventilatory devices. But where LMA Proseal provides a more effective glottic seal by having a greater OLP, single use LMA Supreme provides acceptable glottic seal with easier and faster insertion, therefore, it can be accepted as better alternative to LMA Proseal.

Laryngeal mask airway ProSeal provides higher oropharyngeal leak pressure than i-gel in adult patients under general anesthesia: a meta-analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

i-gel is a single-use supraglottic airway device that has a gastric drain tube similar to laryngeal mask airway (LMA) ProSeal. Randomized trials, when compared i-gel with LMA ProSeal, reported a differing results. Primary objective of this study is to compare LMA ProSeal and i-gel in terms of oropharyngeal leak pressure.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials where i-gel has been compared to LMA ProSeal in adult airway management during general anesthesia.

SETTING

Teaching institutions.

MEASUREMENTS

PubMed, PubMed Central, and Cochrane databases were searched with search words "i-gel," "i-gel laryngeal mask airway," "i-gel ProSeal," and "i-gel LMA ProSeal" to find out the randomized controlled trials that compared i-gel with LMA ProSeal in terms of safety and efficacy. A total of 10 prospective randomized trials have been included in this meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

LMA ProSeal provides higher oropharyngeal leak pressure than i-gel (mean difference, 3.37 cm H2O; 95% confidence interval, 1.80-4.95 cm H2O; P< .0001). Time to insert the device, first insertion success rate, and ease of gastric tube insertion are similar with both the devices, but i-gel may be easier to insert. Although the reported complications are not frequent and not very serious, a significantly higher blood staining on the mask has been noted with LMA ProSeal (odds ratio, 0.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.56; P= .0004).

CONCLUSION

LMA ProSeal may still remain the supraglottic device of choice over i-gel in adult patients during general anesthesia as it provided better seal against leak pressure with comparable device insertion characteristics.

An Evaluation of Thyromental Distance-based Method or Weight-based Method in Determining the Size of the Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme: A Randomized Controlled Study

The successful placement of Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) Supreme in adults largely depends on right selection of its size. Most anesthesiologists determine the size of LMA according to patients' body weight, which does not always work well. An alternative method should be established to guarantee higher efficacy of ventilation through LMA Supreme placement. This controlled study was designed to compare the efficacy of LMA Supreme placement, when the size of it is determined by body weight or by thyromental distance. Eighty healthy individuals with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1 to 2 scheduled for elective ambulatory surgery were randomly allocated into 2 groups: thyromental distance-based group (n = 40) and weight-based group (n = 40). Efficacy of controlled ventilation through LMA, easy of device placement, and pharyngeal sealing were evaluated between the groups. The tidal volume under 10 cm H2O pressure-controlled ventilation in thyromental distance-based group was significantly higher than that in weight-based group (523.9 ± 135.4 vs 477.1 ± 185.6; P = 0.031). The number of patients who achieved "excellent" tidal volume (>8 mL/kg) were significantly more in the thyromental distance-based group (24/40 vs 13/40; P = 0.019). Among overweight patients (body mass index >23), those who achieved "excellent" tidal volume (>8 mL/kg) under 10 cm H2O pressure-controlled ventilation were also more in thyromental distanced-based group than in weight-based group (11/24 vs 2/24; P = 0.031). The time taken for successful insertion was shorter with the thyromental distance-based group compared with the weight-based group (54.6 ± 33.6 vs 87.8 ± 98.9; P = 0.021). Oropharyngeal leak pressure was pretty close between the 2 groups (26.4 ± 5.1 vs 25.0 ± 5.7 cm H2O; P = 0.180). In terms of guaranteeing better positive pressure ventilation, facilitating device placement, and reliable pharyngeal sealing, thyromental distance-based method can be a better option compared with the weight-based method for LMA Supreme size selection.

Difficult Airway Society 2015 guidelines for management of unanticipated difficult intubation in adults

These guidelines provide a strategy to manage unanticipated difficulty with tracheal intubation. They are founded on published evidence. Where evidence is lacking, they have been directed by feedback from members of the Difficult Airway Society and based on expert opinion. These guidelines have been informed by advances in the understanding of crisis management; they emphasize the recognition and declaration of difficulty during airway management. A simplified, single algorithm now covers unanticipated difficulties in both routine intubation and rapid sequence induction. Planning for failed intubation should form part of the pre-induction briefing, particularly for urgent surgery. Emphasis is placed on assessment, preparation, positioning, preoxygenation, maintenance of oxygenation, and minimizing trauma from airway interventions. It is recommended that the number of airway interventions are limited, and blind techniques using a bougie or through supraglottic airway devices have been superseded by video- or fibre-optically guided intubation. If tracheal intubation fails, supraglottic airway devices are recommended to provide a route for oxygenation while reviewing how to proceed. Second-generation devices have advantages and are recommended. When both tracheal intubation and supraglottic airway device insertion have failed, waking the patient is the default option. If at this stage, face-mask oxygenation is impossible in the presence of muscle relaxation, cricothyroidotomy should follow immediately. Scalpel cricothyroidotomy is recommended as the preferred rescue technique and should be practised by all anaesthetists. The plans outlined are designed to be simple and easy to follow. They should be regularly rehearsed and made familiar to the whole theatre team.

Effect-site concentration of propofol required for LMA-Supreme™ insertion with and without remifentanil: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

A new supraglottic device, the LMA-Supreme™, has recently become available for clinical use. Information on anaesthetic and co-adjuvant requirements for insertion of the LMA-Supreme™ is limited. The present study aimed to evaluate the optimal effect-site concentration of propofol in 50 % (EC50) of adults necessary for successful insertion of the LMA-Supreme™ and to examine remifentanil's effect on propofol requirements.

METHODS

Fifty-eight elective patients (aged 18-60 years; ASA (American Society Anaesthesiologists) physical status classification I and II) scheduled for day surgery were randomly assigned to one of two groups: propofol with saline or propofol with remifentanil. Anaesthesia was induced by target-controlled infusion according to predetermined effect-site concentrations of propofol and remifentanil (5 ng.mL(-1)). The EC50 was calculated using Dixon's up-and-down method. Ten minutes following drug administration, LMA-Supreme™ insertion was attempted without the use of muscle relaxant drugs.

RESULTS

In the propofol + saline group, the EC50 of propofol required for LMA-Supreme™ insertion was 6.32 ± 0.67 μg.mL(-1) (95 % CI, 5.69-6.94 μg.mL(-1)). With the addition of remifentanil at an effect-site concentration of 5 ng.mL(-1), the EC50 of propofol required for LMA-Supreme™ insertion was 2.50 ± 0.80 μg.mL(-1) (95 % CI, 1.82-3.17 μg.mL(-1); p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The propofol requirement for smooth insertion of the LMA-Supreme™ was 60 % less when remifentanil (5 ng.mL(-1)) was co-administered.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Identified as NCT01974648 at www.clinicaltrials.gov .

Comparisons of clinical performance of Guardian laryngeal mask with laryngeal mask airway ProSeal

Background

The Guardian Laryngeal Mask Airway (G-LMA) is a new silicone-based single-use extraglottic device with the drainage port and a cuff pilot valve with pressure indicator. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical performance of this laryngeal mask airway with ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (P-LMA).

Methods

In this prospective randomized study, we included adult patients with ASA grading I and II scheduled for elective surgery requiring supine position under total intravenous anesthesia. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups, 40 in each. G-LMA and P-LMA were used in groups G and P respectively. The cuff of each device was air inflated to 60 cmH₂O. The primary outcome was to compare the airway sealing pressure and the secondary outcome was to compare the efficacy and safety of these two devices with respect to insertion success, insertion time, ease of insertion, volume of air for cuff inflation to 60 cmH₂O, intracuff pressure measurement, gastric tube insertion attempt, gastric tube insertion time, Fiberoptic laryngeal view, and postoperative pharyngolaryngeal morbidity.

Results

The airway sealing pressure at 60cmH₂O cuff pressure was significantly greater in G-LMA than P-LMA (p = 0.04).The first successful attempt of both groups were comparable (p = 1.000). Insertion time was significantly shorter in G-LMA than P-LMA (p < 0.0001). The first successful attempt for the gastric tube insertion in both groups was comparable (p = 0.431). Gastric tube insertion time was less in G-LMA than in P-LMA (p < 0.0001). The volume of air for cuff inflation to 60 cmH₂O was more in G-LMA than in P-LMA (<0.0001). The intracuff pressure measurement at 30, 60, 90 and 120 minutes were comparable (p = 0.823, 0.182, 0.870, 0.658).We did not find differences in ease of insertion (p = 0.60); Fiber-optic positions of airway devices were comparable (p = 0.83). In addition, blood staining (p = 1.00), sore throat and dysphagia at 1, 2 and 24 hour (p = 1.00) were comparable in both groups.

Conclusion

The Guardian laryngeal mask airway was associated with high airway sealing pressure with a quicker insertion of the device as well as gastric tube.

Trial registration

Clinical Trial.gov Identifier: NCT02063516. Date: June 2013

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12871-015-0039-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Feasibility of LMA Supreme for airway management in unconscious patients by ALS paramedics

Background

Airway management to ensure sufficient gas exchange is of major importance in emergency care. The accepted basic technique is to maintain an open airway and perform artificial ventilation in emergency situations is bag-valve mask (BVM) ventilation with manual airway management without airway adjuncts or with an oropharyngeal tube (OPA) only. Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is often referred to as the golden standard of airway management, but is associated with low success rates and significant insertion-related complications when performed by non-anaesthetists. Supraglottic devices (SADs) are one alternative to ETI in these situations, but there is limited evidence regarding the use of SAD in non-cardiac arrest situations. LMA Supreme (LMA-S) is a new SAD which theoretically has an advantage concerning the risk of aspiration due to an oesophageal inlet gastric tube port.

Methods

Forty paramedics were recruited to participate in the study. Adult (>18 years) patients, unconscious due to medical or traumatic cause with a GCS score corresponding to 3–5 and needed airway management were included in the study. Our aim was to study the feasibility of LMA-S as a primary airway method in unconscious patients by advanced life support (ALS) trained paramedics in prehospital care.

Results

Three regional Emergency Medical Service (EMS) services participated and 21 patients were treated during the survey. The LMA-S was placed correctly on the first attempt in all instances 21/21 (100%), with a median time to first ventilation of 9.8 s. Paramedics evaluated the insertion to be easy in every case 21/21 (100%). Because of air leak later in the patient care, the LMA-S was exchanged to an LT-D in two cases and to ETI in three cases (23.81%) by the paramedics. Regurgitation occurred after insertion two times out of 21 (9.52%) and in one of these cases (4.76%), paramedics reported regurgitation inside the LMA-S.

Conclusion

We conclude that the LMA-S seems to be relatively easy and quick to insert in unconscious patients by paramedics. However, we found out that there were ventilation related problems with the LMA-S. Further studies are warranted.

The randomized crossover comparison of airway sealing with the laryngeal mask airway Supreme(™) at three different intracuff pressures in children

BACKGROUND

An intracuff pressure of 80 cm H2 O in the adult-sized laryngeal mask airway Supreme has been recommended to obtain a higher oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP). However, the intracuff pressure for the higher OLP in the pediatric laryngeal mask airway Supreme could be different from that in the adult-sized laryngeal mask airway Supreme. Thus, we measured and compared OLP at three intracuff pressures of 40, 60, and 80 cm H2 O in the pediatric laryngeal mask airway Supreme.

METHODS

This study was designed as a randomized crossover study and enrolled 36 children, aged 0-108 months and 5-30 kg in weight. After insertion of the laryngeal mask airway Supreme, oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) was measured at intracuff pressures of 40, 60, and 80 cm H2 O according to one of six sequences produced on the basis of 3 × 6 Williams crossover design. During the intraoperative period, the laryngeal mask airway Supreme was maintained using the last intracuff pressure of the allocated sequence. The intraoperative and postoperative complications were compared among three maintenance intracuff pressures.

RESULTS

OLP at the intracuff pressure of 60 cm H2 O was significantly higher than that of 40 cm H2 O (17.9 ± 3.9 vs 16.9 ± 4.2 cm H2 O, P = 0.004) and was comparable with that of 80 cm H2 O (17.9 ± 3.9 vs 17.8 ± 4.6 cm H2 O, P = 0.938). There were no significant differences of intraoperative and postoperative complications among the three maintenance intracuff pressures.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that the use of an intracuff pressure of 60 cm H2 O in pediatric laryngeal mask airway Supreme provides a higher OLP compared with 40 cm H2 O.

A prospective randomised controlled trial of the LMA Supreme vs cuffed tracheal tube as the airway device during percutaneous tracheostomy

We studied the performance of the LMA Supreme against a cuffed tracheal tube, our standard method of airway control during percutaneous tracheostomy, in 50 consecutive patients from three general critical care units. The primary outcome measure was adequacy of ventilation calculated as the difference in arterial carbon dioxide tension before and after tracheostomy. On an intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference in the increase in arterial carbon dioxide tension between groups, with a median (IQR [range]) for the LMA Supreme of 0.9 (0.3-1.6 [0-2.8]) kPa, and for the tracheal tube of 0.8 (0.4-1.2 [0-2.5]) kPa, p = 0.82. Eight patients out of 25 (32%) crossed over from the LMA Supreme group to the tracheal tube group before commencement of tracheostomy due to airway or ventilation problems, compared with none out of 25 in the tracheal tube group, p = 0.01, and tracheostomy was postponed in two patients in the LMA Supreme group due to poor oxygenation. There were more clinically important complications in the LMA Supreme group compared with the tracheal tube group.

ProSeal laryngeal mask airway™ insertion in the prone position: Optimal utilization of operation theatre personnel and time?

BACKGROUND

Positioning an anesthetized patient prone is challenging with regard to manpower requirement, time to surgical readiness and airway management. The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway™ (PLMA) is emerging as a suitable alternative, both as a primary and a rescue airway device to the tracheal tube (TT) for patients undergoing surgery in the prone position.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this prospective randomized study, 70 patients scheduled to undergo pilonidal sinus excision in prone position were allocated to two groups of 35 patients each, depending on the position of the patient at induction and device placement: Group S (device placed while supine) and Group P (device placed while prone). We compared the manpower requirement, time to surgical readiness, efficacy and safety of the PLMA for airway management in the two groups.

RESULTS

The number of personnel [5 (4-6) vs. 3 (3-3); P < 0.001] required for positioning the patient and surgical readiness time (22.1 ± 3 vs. 5.9 ± 0.9 min; P < 0.001) was higher in group S. There was no difference between the two groups with regard to efficacy and safety of the PLMA. Incidence of blood on the PLMA cuff and sore throat was comparable in the two groups (P = 1.000).

CONCLUSION

We conclude that induction and placing the PLMA in the prone position by experienced users require fewer personnel and reduces surgical readiness time.

Comparison of laryngeal mask airway supreme and laryngeal mask airway proseal for laryngopharyngeal trauma and postoperative morbidity in children

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Laryngeal mask airway (LMA), which has been used frequently in airway management, can cause laryngopharyngeal injury and morbidity. In this trial, we compare the macroscopic changes on laryngopharyngeal structures and the postoperative laryngopharyngeal morbidity by using LMA supreme with LMA proseal in children.

METHODS

We divided patients into two groups. We inserted size three LMA proseal into the first group and size three LMA supreme into the second group. Before LMA insertion and after LMA removal, we performed direct laryngoscopy on the patients. We compared hyperemia, mucosal injury and blood staining on LMA removal, as well as insertion time, rate of success in gastric tube insertion on the first attempt, nausea, vomiting, and sore throat between the two groups.

RESULTS

We recorded no significant differences between the two groups for mean operation time, sex, age, weight, rate of success in gastric tube insertion on first attempt, nausea, vomiting, sore throat and mucosal injury. Mean insertion time for the LMA proseal group was significantly longer than the LMA supreme group (p = 0.0001). The ratio of blood staining on LMA removal was significantly higher in the LMA proseal group than the LMA supreme group (p = 0.034). The patients with blood staining on LMA removal exhibited significantly more mucosal hyperemia and injury than the patients with clear LMA (p = 0.0001, p = 0.020).

CONCLUSION

LMA supreme insertion is faster and easier than LMA proseal and causes less laryngopharyngeal injury than LMA proseal in children.

Can Supreme™ laryngeal mask airway be an alternative to endotracheal intubation in laparoscopic surgery?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In laparoscopic surgical procedures, experts recommend tracheal intubation for airway management. Laryngeal mask airway (LMA) can be a good alternative to intubation. In this case series, we aimed to examine the use of the Supreme™ LMA (SLMA) in laparoscopic surgical practice.

METHODS

We planned the study for sixty patients between the ages of 18 and 60, who would undergo laparoscopic surgery. We recorded one, 15, 30, 45, and 60-minute peripheral O2 saturation (SpO2) and end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO2) values, heart rate and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP). We observed the duration of SLMA insertion, the rate of gastric tube applicability, whether nausea, vomiting, and coughing developed, and whether there was postoperative 1-hour sore throat.

RESULTS

The initial EtCO2 mean was lower than the EtCO2 means of 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes (p < 0.0001) and the 15-minute EtCO2 mean was lower than other measured EtCO2 means. We observed the initial heart rate mean to be higher than the ones following the SLMA insertion, prior to the SLMA removal, and after the SLMA removal. The heart rate mean after the SLMA insertion was remarkably lower than the heart rate mean prior to the SLMA removal (p=0.013). The MAP after the SLMA insertion was lower than the initial MAP means, as well as the MAP averages prior to after the removal of SLMA (p=0.0001).

CONCLUSION

SLMA can be a suitable alternative to intubation in laparoscopic surgical procedures in a group of selected patients.

Supreme Laryngeal Mask Airway achieves faster insertion times than Classic LMA during chest compressions in manikins

BACKGROUND

According to the 2010 European Resuscitation Council guidelines on cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), one can appreciate that the classic laryngeal mask airway (CLMA) is acceptable as an alternative airway device to endotracheal intubation for airway management in cardiac arrest victims.

OBJECTIVE

To compare a relatively new supraglottic airway device, the Supreme Laryngeal Mask Airway (SLMA), with the CLMA in a cardiac arrest scenario.

METHODS

Fifty healthcare professionals inexperienced in advanced airway management attempted to insert both airway devices in a manikin in 2 scenarios: in the first, chest compressions were not performed (non-CPR scenario), and in the second, uninterrupted chest compressions were performed (CPR scenario). The primary end points were insertion time and success rate at first attempt. The level of self-confidence of each participant was recorded.

RESULTS

SLMA achieves faster insertion times both in the non-CPR (SLMA: 10.4 ± 2.7 seconds vs CLMA: 13.4 ± 3.2 seconds, P < .05) and in the CPR scenario (SLMA: 9.9 ± 2.0 seconds Vs CLMA: 11.9 ± 2.3 seconds, P < .05). The difference between first attempt success rates was not statistically significant both in the non-CPR (SLMA: 96% vs CLMA: 90%, P = .18) and in the CPR scenario (SLMA: 98% vs CLMA: 94%, P = .32). The participants are more self-confident using SLMA instead of CLMA (P < .001) and 94% of them would prefer SLMA for future use.

CONCLUSION

SLMA could be a useful alternative to CLMA during CPR in the hands of healthcare professionals with minimal experience in airway management.

A randomized comparison of the laryngeal mask airway supreme™ and laryngeal mask airway unique™ in infants and children: does cuff pressure influence leak pressure?

BACKGROUND

The cuff pressure for optimal airway sealing with first-generation laryngeal mask airway has been shown to be 40 cm H(2)O in children. Currently, there are no data regarding the ideal intracuff pressure for the laryngeal mask airway Supreme (Supreme) in children.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical performance of the laryngeal mask airway supreme with the laryngeal mask airway unique in infants and children.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred eighty children were assigned to receive either a Supreme or a laryngeal mask airway-U. We hypothesized higher airway leak pressure with the Supreme at both 40 cm H(2)O and 60 cm H(2)O, when compared with the laryngeal mask airway-U. Ease and time of insertion, insertion attempts, fiber optic examination, quality of airway, efficacy of mechanical ventilation, success of gastric tube placement (Supreme), incidence of gastric insufflation, and complications were also assessed.

RESULTS

Airway leak pressure at an intracuff pressure of 60 cm H(2)O for the Supreme was 17.4 (5.2) vs laryngeal mask airway-U at 18.4 (6.6) cm H(2)O and did not differ when compared to an intracuff pressure of 40 cm H(2)O for both devices; Supreme at 17.2 (5) vs laryngeal mask airway-U at 17.7 (6) cm H(2)O. The laryngeal mask airway-U was associated with higher first-attempt success rates. The Supreme was associated with less gastric insufflation than the laryngeal mask airway-U.

CONCLUSIONS

Intracuff pressures of 40 cm H(2)O may be sufficient for the Supreme in children, and there may be no added benefit of an intracuff pressure of 60 cm H(2)O, as leak pressures were similar. The Supreme may be preferred over the laryngeal mask airway-U for its lower rates of gastric insufflation and provision for gastric access when mechanical ventilation is utilized.

Comparison of ProSeal LMA with Supreme LMA in paediatric patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Supreme laryngeal mask airway (S-LMA) has been improved in recent years, but comparative studies with a sizeable number of paediatric patients are limited in number. In this study, oropharyngeal leak pressures (OLPs) were compared between S-LMA and ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (P-LMA) in paediatric patients.

METHODS

After obtaining approval from the ethics committee and written informed consent from the relatives of the patients, 60 patients, from 9 months to 5 years of age and 10-20 kg in weight, who were recommended for elective surgery were included in this prospective and randomised study. The patients were assigned to the S-LMA and P-LMA groups. OLP, insertion times, success rates, ease of airway device placement, fibre optical assessment, success rates and insertion times of an orogastric tube (OGT) were compared.

RESULTS

P-LMA was placed successfully in all the patients. One patient was intubated in the S-LMA group. The outcomes of a total of 59 patients were analysed. The insertion times of the airway devices were shorter in the S-LMA group than in the P-LMA group (S-LMA; 12.2 ± 2.9, P-LMA; 15.4 ± 3.7 s) (P = 0.001). The first insertion attempts of airway device placement were similar. The OLPs were similar (P-LMA; 17.2 ± 2.3, S-LMA; 16.4 ± 1.7 cm H2 O). The fibre-optically determined anatomic position was better in the P-LMA group (P = 0.02). The insertion time of the OGT was shorter with S-LMA than with P-LMA (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that S-LMA has OLPs similar to those of P-LMA in paediatric patients and that S-LMA provides successful positive pressure ventilation.

Predicted end-tidal sevoflurane concentration for insertion of a Laryngeal Mask Supreme: a prospective observational study

CONTEXT

The single-use Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) Supreme is a new supraglottic airway device. It has been reported to be reliable and easy-to-use in clinical practice; however, the anaesthetic techniques for its insertion are not standardised.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine the ED50 of end-tidal sevoflurane concentration for successful LMA Supreme insertion without the use of neuromuscular blockade.

DESIGN

A prospective observational study.

SETTING

A single tertiary care surgical centre.

PATIENTS

Thirty-one consecutive elective patients scheduled for minor elective surgery under general anaesthesia.

INTERVENTION

Patients were preoxygenated with 100% oxygen and anaesthetised using normal tidal volume inhalation of sevoflurane. The target sevoflurane concentration was determined using a modified Dixon's 'up-and-down' method (starting at 2.5% with 0.5% as the step size). After the predetermined end-tidal concentration had been established and maintained for 10 min, LMA Supreme insertion was attempted.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The main outcome measure was the patient's response to LMA Supreme insertion, classified as either 'movement' or 'no movement'. The mean of the concentrations of seven cross-overs from 'movement' to 'no movement' was used to estimate the ED50.

RESULTS

The estimated sevoflurane concentration for successful LMA Supreme insertion in 50% of adults was 3.03 ± 0.75% (95% confidence interval 2.3 to 3.7%). The values of the ET50 and ET95 obtained by logistic regression were 2.83 and 5.30%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Sevoflurane alone can provide acceptable conditions for insertion of the LMA Supreme in adults, at an estimated minimum alveolar anaesthetic concentration of 3% with minimal adverse effects.

A comparison of the performance of the I-gel™ vs. the LMA-S™during anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Conflicting results were found between the I-gel™ and the LMA-Supreme™ during anesthesia, so we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the effectiveness and safety of the I-gel™ vs. the LMA-Supreme™during anesthesia.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted using Pubmed, EMbase, ISI Web of Knowledge, the Cochrane Library, China Journal Full-text Database, Chinese Biomedical Database, Chinese Scientific Journals Full-text Database, CMA Digital Periodicals, and Google scholar to find RCTs that compare the LMA-S™ with the i-gel™during anesthesia. Two reviewers independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed the methodological qualities and evidence levels. Data were analyzed by RevMan 5.0 and comprehensive meta-analysis software.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs were included. There were no significant differences in oropharyngeal leak pressures (mean difference [MD] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.10 2.53), device placement time (MD -1.3, 95%CI -4.07 1.44), first attempt insertion success (risk ratio [RR] 1.01, 95% CI 0.9 1.14), grade 3 and 4 fiberoptic view (RR 0.89, 95%CI 0.65 1.21), and blood on removal (RR 0.62, 95%CI 0.32 1.22) between the i-gel™ and the LMA-Supreme™, respectively. However, the LMA-Supreme™was associated with easier gastric tube insertion (RR 1.17, 95%CI 1.07 1.29), and more sore throat (RR 2.56, 95%CI 1.60 4.12) than the i-gel™ group.

CONCLUSIONS

The LMA-Supreme™ and i-gel™ were similarly successful and rapidly inserted. However, the LMA-Supreme™ was shown to be easier for gastric tube insertion and associated with more sore throat compared with the i-gel™.

Comparison of Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme and Laryngeal Mask Airway Proseal with respect to oropharyngeal leak pressure during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomised controlled trial

CONTEXT

A comparison of the efficacy and safety of the Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) Supreme (LMAS) versus the LMA Proseal (LMAP) in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the LMAS with LMAP in terms of ventilatory efficacy, airway leak pressure (airway protection), ease-of-use and complications.

DESIGN

Prospective, single-blind, randomised, controlled study.

SETTING

The Hospital del Sureste and Hospital Ramon y Cajal, Madrid, between May 2009 and March 2011. The Hospital del Sureste is a secondary hospital and Hospital Ramon y Cajal is a tertiary hospital.

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were studied following informed consent. Inclusion criteria were American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I to III and age 18 or more. Exclusion criteria were BMI more than 40 kg m, symptomatic hiatus hernia or severe gastro-oesophageal reflux.

INTERVENTIONS

Anaesthesiologists experienced in the use of LMAP and LMAS participated in the trial. One hundred twenty-two patients were randomly allocated to LMAS or LMAP.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Our primary outcome measure was the oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP). Secondary outcomes were the time and number of attempts for insertion, ease of insertion of the drain tube, adequacy of ventilation and the incidence of complication. Patients were interviewed postoperatively to evaluate the presence of sore throat, dysphagia or dysphonia.

RESULTS

Two patients were excluded when surgery changed from laparoscopic to open. A total of 120 patients were finally included in the analysis. The mean OLP in the LMAP group was significantly higher than that in the LMAS group (30.7 ± 6.2 versus 26.8 ± 4.1 cmH2O;P < 0.01). This was consistent with a higher maximum tidal volume achieved with the LMAP compared to the LMAS (511 ± 68 versus 475 ± 55 ml; P = 0.04). The success rate of the first attempt insertion was higher for the LMAS group than the LMAP group (96.7 and 71.2%, respectively; P < 0.01). The time taken for insertion, ease of insertion of the drain tube, complications and postoperative pharyngolaryngeal adverse events were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

The LMAP has a higher OLP and achieves a higher maximum tidal volume compared to the LMAS, in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The success of the first attempt insertion was higher for the LMAS.

A randomised, non-crossover study of the GuardianCPV Laryngeal Mask versus the LMA Supreme in paralysed, anaesthetised female patients

We investigated the hypothesis that the oropharyngeal leak pressure would differ between the GuardianCPV™ and the LMA Supreme™ in anaesthetised patients. We randomly assigned 120 patients to receive either the GuardianCPV or the LMA Supreme for airway management. Oropharyngeal leak pressure was measured during cuff inflation from 0 to 40 ml in 10-ml steps. In addition, intracuff pressure, fibreoptic position of the airway and drain tube, device insertion success, ventilation success, blood staining and airway morbidity were determined. Mean (SD) oropharyngeal leak pressures for clinically acceptable cuff volumes of 20-40 ml were 31 (7) cmH2O for the GuardianCPV and 27 (7) cmH2O for the LMA Supreme (p < 0.0001); mean (SD) intracuff pressures were 68 (33) cmH2O and 88 (43) cmH2O (p < 0.0001), respectively. We found no differences in device insertion success, ventilation success, fibreoptic position of the airway and drain tube, blood staining or airway morbidity. We conclude that the oropharyngeal leak pressure is better for the GuardianCPV than for the LMA Supreme in anaesthetised patients.

A randomized equivalence trial comparing the i-gel and laryngeal mask airway Supreme in children

BACKGROUND

The laryngeal mask airway Supreme (Supreme) is a new single-use supraglottic device with gastric access capability now available in all sizes for children.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the i-gel with the Supreme in children for routine airway maintenance.

MATERIALS/METHODS

One hundred and seventy children, aged 3 months to 11 years, 5-50 kg in weight, were randomly assigned to receive either the i-gel or the Supreme. The primary outcome measured was airway leak pressure. Secondary outcomes included the following: ease and time for insertion, insertion success rate, fiberoptic grade of view, ease of gastric tube placement, number of airway manipulations, quality of airway during anesthetic maintenance, and complications.

RESULTS

A total of 168 patients were assessed for the outcomes. The median (IQR [range]) airway leak pressure for the i-gel was higher than with the Supreme, 20 (18-25 [9-40]) cm H(2)O vs 17 (14-22 [10-40]) cm H(2)O, respectively (P = 0.001). There were no differences in the time for device insertion, fiberoptic grade of view, quality of airway, and complications. Median (IQR[range]) time of successful insertion of a gastric tube was faster with the Supreme, 12 (9.2-14.3 [5.2-44.2]) s than with the i-gel, 14 (11.9-19 [6.9-75]) s; P = 0.01. The number of airway manipulations during placement was higher with the i-gel than with the laryngeal mask airway Supreme (12 vs 13 patients), P = 0.02.

CONCLUSIONS

In infants and children, when a single-use supraglottic device with gastric access capabilities is required, the i-gel demonstrated higher airway leak pressures and can be a useful alternative to the Supreme.