Randomized comparison of the SLIPA (Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway) and the SS-LM (Soft Seal Laryngeal Mask) by medical students

Comparison of the third-generation streamlined liner of the pharynx airway (SLIPA-3G) with the laryngeal mask airway supreme for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized prospective study

Background

The third-generation streamlined liner of the pharynx airway (SLIPA-3G) is a new-generation supraglottic airway device (SAD) that is non-cuffed and disposable, with a sealing pressure that varies dynamically with the airway pressure. This study compared the SLIPA-3G with the laryngeal mask airway supreme (LMAS) in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods

Two hundred and twenty patients scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomly allocated to either the SLIPA-3G group or the LMAS group. Data were collected on the patients’ hemodynamic parameters at different time points, ease of insertion, fiberoptic view, oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) at different time points and SAD-related complications.

Results

The mean OLP immediately after device placement in the LMAS group was significantly higher than that of the SLIPA-3G group (31.34 ± 6.99 cmH₂O vs.28.94 ± 6.01 cmH₂O, P = 0.008, 95% CI 0.62–4.17). The OLPs of the two groups were not significantly different after the induction of a pneumoperitoneum until the end of surgery. The OLP increased gradually through the course of the operation in the SLIPA-3G group (P value = 0.035) but not in the LMAS group (P value = 0.945). There was no significant difference between the two groups in hemodynamic parameters, insertion time and success rate, fiberoptic view and complication rate.

Conclusions

The SLIPA-3G and LMAS were associated with comparable OLPs, hemodynamic parameters, ease of insertion, fiberoptic views and complication rates when used during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The SLIPA-3G can be used as an effective alternative to the LMAS in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries.

Insertion methods comparison for The Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway in children by novice

BACKGROUND

The Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway (SLIPA™) is a popular supraglottic airway device used for pediatric anesthesia. However, based on the anatomical features of pediatric patients, novice residents are expected to have difficulties inserting the device. The objective of this work was to improve the SLIPA insertion by modifying the device.

METHODS

A total of 134 children were randomized into two groups. Anesthesia was standardized among all patients except for the way in which the SLIPA was inserted. One group underwent the conventional method of insertion (Group C), while the modified group received a SLIPA that was bent120° at the 'bridge' point with an intubating stylet (Group M). The primary outcome was insertion success rate, and the secondary outcomes included insertion time, incidence of complications and hemodynamic responses to insertion.

RESULTS

The insertion success rate was significantly higher in Group M than Group C (94% vs. 73%, Χ² = 10.659, P = 0.001). The insertion time for Group M [29.31 (25.91-35.60) seconds] was shorter than for Group C [34.72 (26.81-42.58) seconds] (Z = -2.381, P = 0.017). Trends in heart rate (F = 0.260, P = 0.794), mean blood pressure (F = 0.167, P = 0.683) did not significantly differ between the two groups over time. In terms of complications, we found no significant differences between groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The 120° bend improved SLIPA insertion when performed by novice, as reflected by higher insertion success rates and shorter insertion times, with no statistical differences in hemodynamic response to insertion or the incidence rates of complications between the two groups.

Comparison of the Disposable Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway and the Disposable I-gel in Anaesthetized, Paralyzed Adults: A Randomized Prospective Study

Introduction. This study compared streamlined liner of the pharynx airway (SLIPA) and I-gel noninflatable, single-use, supraglottic airway device (SAD) performance in anesthetized, paralyzed adults. Methods. Eighty adults (ASA physical statuses I–III) who were undergoing elective procedures under general anesthesia with an SAD were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, single-blind study. Subjects were randomly and evenly assigned to the SLIPA or I-gel group for intraoperative airway management. Ease and number of insertions, insertion time, oropharyngeal sealing pressure, hemodynamic response, oxygen saturation (SpO₂), end-tidal CO₂ (EtCO₂), and peri- and postoperative complications were examined. Results. The SLIPA and I-gel devices were successfully inserted in 100% and 95% of subjects, respectively. In two I-gel subjects (5%), ventilation was not possible after two attempts, but a size 55 SLIPA was successfully inserted in both cases. Forty-two and 38 patients were ultimately included in the SLIPA and I-gel groups, respectively. Insertion time was significantly shorter with the SLIPA (11.19 ± 3.03 s) than with the I-gel (15.05 ± 6.37 s, P = 0.003). Oropharyngeal sealing pressure was significantly higher in SLIPA (28.76 ± 3.11 cmH₂O) than in I-gel (25.9 ± 3.65 cmH₂O) subjects (P = 0.001). Blood staining occurred more frequently in SLIPA (n = 8, 19.0%) than in I-gel (n = 5, 13.2%) patients (P < 0.01). Heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure, SpO₂, and EtCO₂ were not significantly different between groups. Conclusion. Although blood staining incidence was higher, SLIPA insertion was easier and faster than I-gel insertion. The SLIPA provided better airway sealing pressure. Both devices had similar mechanical ventilation and oxygenation characteristics and comparable hemodynamic stability. Both noninflatable SADs are useful, but SLIPA rapid insertion and good airway sealing make it an effective alternative to the I-gel.

Comparison of streamlined liner of the pharynx airway (SLIPA ™) and laryngeal mask airway: a systematic review and meta-analysis

We performed a systematic review to compare the efficacy and safety of the streamlined liner of the pharynx airway and laryngeal mask airway used in adults during general anaesthesia. We included 14 studies with studies with 1273 patients in total. There was no evidence of a difference between the two devices in insertion success rate on the first attempt (13 studies, 1143 patients), insertion time (seven studies, 576 patients), ease of insertion (five studies, 466 patients), oropharyngeal leak pressure (eight studies, 771 patients) and the quality of the fibreoptic view of the larynx through the device (three studies, 281 patients). The relative risk (95% CI) of bloodstaining of the device (nine studies, 859 patients) was 2.09 (1.46-3.00) for the streamlined liner of the pharynx airway compared with the laryngeal mask airway. Other adverse events were comparable. Subgroup analysis suggested that the insertion by novice users might be faster and more successful with the streamlined liner of the pharynx airway than the laryngeal mask airway; however, this was from only two studies and 186 patients. The method of size selection of the streamlined liner of the pharynx airway device might also affect the speed of insertion: choosing according to the width of the patient's thyroid cartilage, rather than height, may produce better results.

Comparison of the clinical effectiveness between the streamlined liner of pharyngeal airway (SLIPA) and the laryngeal mask airway by novice personnel

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the streamlined liner of the pharynx airway (SLIPA) with the classic laryngeal mask airway when used by novice personnel.

METHODS

There were 114 patients enrolled into this study who underwent general anesthesia were randomly allocated into one of 2 groups; LMA group (n = 57) or SLIPA group (n = 57). After insertion, insertion success rate, insertion time, and hemodynamic responses to insertion were accessed. After surgery, postoperative airway morbidity (sore throat, dysphonia, dysphagia) were evaluated.

RESULTS

The SLIPA was successfully inserted in 96% of patients (55/57) and the LMA in 93% (53/57) (P = 0.408). First attempt success rates were 88% (44/57) and 77% (50/57) in the SLIPA and the LMA (P = 0.142). The successful insertion time in SLIPA group (33.4 ± 11.0 sec) was significantly shorter than that of LMA group (38.8 ± 16.6 sec) (P = 0.048) and the insertion time at the first attempt was also shorter in SLIPA group (31.0 ± 6.3 sec) than LMA group (34.7 ± 8.6 sec) (P = 0.013). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in hemodynamic responses and postoperative airway morbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

The SLIPA was similar to the LMA in insertion success rate, hemodynamic response, and postoperative airway morbidity by novice personnel. The insertion time at the first attempt and successful insertion time of the SLIPA were significantly shorter than those of the LMA. Therefore, the SLIPA could be a useful alternative to the LMA as primary SGA for novice personnel.

Comparison of streamlined liner of the pharynx airway (SLIPA™) with the laryngeal mask airway Proseal™ for lower abdominal laparoscopic surgeries in paralyzed, anesthetized patients

Context:

Supraglottic airway devices have been used as an alternative to tracheal intubation during laparoscopic surgery.

Aims:

The study was designed to compare the efficacy of Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway (SLIPA) for positive pressure ventilation and postoperative complications with the Laryngeal Mask Airway ProSeal (PLMA) for patients undergoing lower abdominal laparoscopies under general anesthesia with controlled ventilation.

Settings and Design:

Prospective, crossover randomized controlled trial performed on patients undergoing lower abdominal laparoscopic surgeries.

Methods:

A total of 120 patients undergoing lower abdominal laparoscopic surgeries were randomly allocated into two equal groups; PLMA and SLIPA groups. Number of intubation attempts, insertion time, ease of insertion, and fiberoptic bronchoscopic view were recorded. Lung mechanics data were collected 5 minutes after securing the airway, then after abdominal insufflation. Blood traces and regurgitation were checked for; postoperative sore throat and other complications were recorded.

Statistical Analysis:

Arithmetic mean and standard deviation values were calculated and statistical analyses were performed for each group. Independent sample t-test was used to compare continuous variables exhibiting normal distribution, and Chi-squared test for noncontinuous variables. P value <0.05 was considered significant.

Results:

Insertion time, first insertion success rate, and ease of insertion were comparable in both groups. Fiberoptic bronchoscopic view was significantly better and epiglottic downfolding was significantly lower in SLIPA group. Sealing pressure and lung mechanics were similar. Gastric distension was not observed in both groups. Postoperative sore throat was significantly higher in PACU in PLMA group. Blood traces on the device were significantly more in SLIPA group.

Conclusions:

SLIPA can be used as a useful alternative to PLMA in patients undergoing lower abdominal laparoscopic surgery with muscle relaxant and controlled ventilation.

The clinical effectiveness of the streamlined liner of pharyngeal airway (SLIPA) compared with the laryngeal mask airway ProSeal during general anesthesia

Background

The aim of this study was to compare the streamlined liner of the pharynx airway (SLIPA), a new supraglottic airway device (SGA), with the laryngeal mask airway ProSeal™ (PLMA) during general anesthesia.

Methods

Sixty patients were randomly allocated to two groups; a PLMA group (n = 30) or a SLIPA group (n = 30). Ease of use, first insertion success rate, hemodynamic responses to insertion, ventilatory efficiency and positioning confirmed by fiberoptic bronchoscopy were assessed. Lung mechanics data were collected with side stream spirometry at 10 minutes after insertion. We also compared the incidence of blood stain, incidence and severity of postoperative sore throat and other complications.

Results

First attempt success rates were 93.3% and 73.3%, and mean insertion time was 7.3 sec and 10.5 sec in PLMA and SLIPA. There was a significant rise in all of hemodynamic response from the pre-insertion value at one minute following insertion of SLIPA. But, insertion of PLMA was no significant rise in hemodynamic response. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean maximum sealing pressure, gas leakage, lung mechanics data, gastric distension, postoperative sore throat and other complication between the two groups. Blood stain were noted on the surface of the device in 40% (n = 12) in the SLIPA vs. 6.7% (n = 2) in the PLMA.

Conclusions

The SLIPA is a useful alternative to the PLMA and have comparable efficacy and complication rates. If we acquire the skill to use, SLIPA may be considered as primary SGA devices during surgery under general anesthesia.