A prospective, randomized comparison of the LMA-protector™ and i-gel™ in paralyzed, anesthetized patients

Choice of supraglottic airway devices: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Over the last two decades, significant research interest has led to the development of a wide variety of supraglottic airways (SGAs) for anaesthesia providers to choose from.

METHODS

In this network meta-analysis, we analysed 111 studies, enrolling 12 045 patients undergoing airway management with 29 SGAs. We targeted outcomes that contribute to clinicians' choice of one SGA over another. The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative sore throat (POST). Secondary outcomes were first-attempt insertion success, bleeding complications, and oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP). Based on credible intervals, we created a 'rank order' to guide decision-making for clinicians.

RESULTS

The highest-ranking devices based on credible intervals for POST, bleeding complications, first-attempt insertion success, and OLP were LMA Ambu, Jcerity Endoscoper, LMA Blockbuster, and LMA Baska Mask, respectively. Air-Q and i-gel ranked favourably across multiple outcomes, with i-gel being the only device to rank within the top six SGAs for POST, bleeding, and first-attempt success despite ranking poorly for OLP.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data support the use of LMA-Ambu, Jcerity-Endoscoper, Air-Q, and i-gel when considering patient-centred outcomes. Clinician familiarity with these devices and their continued expansion into anaesthetic practice will have important implications on the perioperative patient experience.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL

PROSPERO (CRD42022383136).

Comparison of the effects of paratracheal pressure and cricoid pressure on placement of the i-gel® supraglottic airway: a randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

Anesthesiologists can use supraglottic airway devices as a rescue technique for failed intubation even in patients with an increased risk of gastric regurgitation. In this randomized study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of cricoid pressure and paratracheal pressure on placement of the i-gel® (Intersurgical Ltd., Wokingham, Berkshire, UK).

METHODS

After induction of anesthesia in 76 adult patients, we inserted the i-gel under paratracheal or cricoid pressure, and assessed the success rate of i-gel insertion, resistance during insertion, time required for insertion, accuracy of the insertion location, tidal volumes, and peak inspiratory pressure with or without each maneuver after i-gel insertion.

RESULTS

The overall success rate of insertion was significantly higher under paratracheal pressure than under cricoid pressure (36/38 [95%] vs 27/38 [71%], respectively; difference, 24%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8 to 40; P = 0.006]. Resistance during insertion was significantly lower under paratracheal pressure than under cricoid pressure (P < 0.001). The time required for insertion was significantly shorter under paratracheal pressure than under cricoid pressure (median [interquartile range], 18 [15-23] sec vs 28 [22-38] sec, respectively; difference in medians, -10; 95% CI, -18 to -4; P < 0.001). Fibreoptic examination of the anatomical alignment of the i-gel in the larynx revealed no significant difference in the accuracy of the insertion location between the two maneuvers (P = 0.31). The differences in tidal volume and peak inspiratory pressure with or without the maneuvers were significantly lower with paratracheal pressure than with cricoid pressure (P = 0.003, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Insertion of the i-gel supraglottic airway was significantly more successful, easier, and faster while applying paratracheal pressure than cricoid pressure.

STUDY REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05377346); first submitted 11 May 2022.

Comparison of incidence of sore throat with laryngeal mask airway Protector and laryngeal mask airway ProSeal: A randomised clinical trial

Background and Aims

Postoperative sore throat (POST) can be as high as 42% in supraglottic devices. LMA® Protector™ is a novel second-generation laryngeal mask airway (LMA) with Cuff Pilot™ technology that allows continuous cuff pressure monitoring. Elevated cuff pressure is a risk factor for POST in supraglottic devices, so we conducted this study to determine whether continuous cuff pressure monitoring can alleviate POST.

Methods

This randomised double-blinded clinical trial compared the incidence of sore throat between LMA® Protector™ and LMA® ProSeal™ and was conducted in 118 patients scheduled for elective short surgical procedures. They were randomised to either LMA® Protector™ (Group PT) or LMA® ProSeal™ (Group P). The airway was secured with either of the two devices. The primary outcome was the incidence of sore throat at 1, 6, and 24 hours postoperatively and compared using the Chi-square test along with other parameters like first attempt success rate and blood staining of the device. The time taken for insertion and oropharyngeal seal pressure were compared using an independent t-test.

Results

The incidence of POST was low with Group PT (12%) compared to Group P (28.8%) (P = 0.005). The mean oropharyngeal seal pressure was significantly higher in Group PT than in Group P [33.72 (3.07) versus 27.72 (3.88) cm of H2O], P < 0.005. The first attempt success rate was 81.2% and 100% in LMA® Protector™ versus LMA® ProSeal™.

Conclusion

LMA® Protector™ had a reduced incidence of POST compared to LMA ProSeal. However, a longer insertion time and difficult placement may be a concern.

Comparison of gum elastic bougie-guided insertion of LMA ProtectorTM versus the conventional method in achieving oesophagal patency - A randomised comparative study

Background and Aims

The passage of a Ryle's tube through the drain port on the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) ProtectorTM has been reported to be arduous despite the larger gastric channel. There are no studies on the evaluation of the guided insertion of LMA ProtectorTM to achieve adequate gastrointestinal drainage function.

Methods

This randomised study included 132 patients who underwent surgery under general anaesthesia. The gum elastic bougie (GEB)-guided insertion of LMA ProtectorTM (group I) was compared with the conventional method (group II), and the alignment of the tip of the drain tube with the oesophagus was assessed. The insertion characteristics of the device, accuracy of LMA ProtectorTM placement, haemodynamic parameters, and post-operative airway morbidity following the insertion of the device were also compared between the two groups.

Results

The first-attempt success rate for the placement of LMA ProtectorTM and the patency of oesophagus was higher in group I patients than in group II (100% vs 84.8%; P < 0.001). However, the time taken for device insertion and associated haemodynamic changes were significantly longer in group I. The patients in group I had better visualisation of laryngeal structures. The GEB-assisted insertion of LMA ProtectorTM resulted in less incidence of blood staining at the cuff of the device.

Conclusion

GEB-guided insertion of LMA ProtectorTM achieved better oesophageal patency than the conventional insertion method. This method also had higher first-attempt success at the placement of the device and was observed to be less traumatic.

Comparison of oropharyngeal leak pressure of LMA Protector and LMA ProSeal in anaesthetised paralysed patients - A randomised controlled trial

Background and Aims

In the present study, we hypothesised that the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) Protector would provide higher oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) than LMA ProSeal. Thus, we planned this study to compare the clinical performance of LMA Protector and LMA ProSeal in terms of OLP as a primary objective and insertion characteristics as secondary objectives.

Methods

Ninety patients of either gender, aged 18-70 years, were randomised into groups PS (LMA ProSeal) and P (LMA Protector). Following anaesthetic induction, the device was inserted as per group allocation. OLP of both devices was taken as a primary objective. Secondary objectives such as insertion time, ease of insertion, number of attempts required, fibre-optic view grading, amount of air (mL) required to get a cuff pressure (CP) of 60 cm H2O, and CP adjustment required and complications, if any, were also noted. Data were analysed using coGuide statistics software, Version 1 (BDSS Corp. Bangalore, Karnataka, India).

Results

The median (interquartile range) OLP was significantly higher with LMA protector than with LMA ProSeal [33.00 (27.0, 36.0) versus [29.50 (26.0, 32.0) (P = 0.009)]. First-attempt success rate was 95.4% (42/44) in group PS and 93% (40/43) in group P. Insertion time, ease of insertion, and fibre-optic view grading were not different between the groups. Gastric tube placement failed in one patient in group PS and in three patients in group P (P = 0.606). The median amount of air (mL) required to get a CP of 60 cm H2O was 26.5 (20, 28) in group PS and 12 (8,13) in group P (95% confidence interval [CI] =10.808-14.575) (P < 0.001). At all time points, CP was significantly higher, and more CP adjustments were needed in group PS than in group P (P < 0.001). Incidence of blood staining and post-operative sore throat at 1 and 24 h were not different between the groups.

Conclusion

LMA Protector provided a significantly higher OLP and less requirement of CP adjustments but comparable first-attempt success rate, mean insertion time, fibre-optic view, and gastric tube insertion as compared to LMA ProSeal.

Assessing a novel second generation laryngeal mask airway using the 'ADEPT' approach: results from the LMA® Protector™ observational study

To address the problem of lack of clinical evidence for airway devices introduced to the market, the Difficult Airway Society (UK) developed an approach (termed ADEPT; Airway Device Evaluation Project Team) to standardise the model for device evaluation. Under this framework we assessed the LMA Protector, a second generation laryngeal mask airway. A total of 111 sequential adult patients were recruited and the LMA Protector inserted after induction of general anaesthesia. Effective insertion was confirmed by resistance to further distal movement, manual ventilation, and listening for gas leakage at the mouth. The breathing circuit was connected to the airway channel and airway patency confirmed with manual test ventilation at 20 cm H20 (water) pressure for 3 s. Data was collected in relation to the time for placement, intraoperative performance and postoperative performance of the airway device. Additionally, investigators rated the ease of insertion and adequacy of lung ventilation on a 5-point scale. The median (interquartile range [range]) time taken to insertion of the device was 31 (26-40[14-780]) s with the ability to ventilate after device insertion 100 (95% CI 96.7- 100)%. Secondary endpoints included one or more manoeuvres 60.3 (95% CI 50.6-69.5)% cases requiring to assist insertion; a median ease of insertion score of 4 (2-5[3-5]), and a median adequacy of ventilation score of 5 (5-5[4-5]). However, the first time insertion rate failure was 9.9% (95% CI 5.1-17.0%). There were no episodes of patient harm recorded, particularly desaturation. The LMA Protector appears suitable for clinical use, but an accompanying article discusses our reflections on the ADEPT approach to studying airway devices from a strategic perspective.

Clinical Performance Comparison of LMA Protector™ Cuff Pilot™ and LMA Supreme™ When Used in Anesthetized, Non-paralyzed Patients

Introduction

The advancement of supraglottic airways (SGAs) has eased airway management, especially for anesthetists. There were functional improvements implemented to the newer SGA. We aim to assess the clinical performance of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) Protector™ Cuff Pilot™ (Teleflex Inc., Wayne, Pennsylvania, USA) against LMA Supreme™ (Teleflex Inc., Wayne, Pennsylvania, USA), in terms of oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP), successful insertion attempts, mean insertion time, ease of gastric tube insertion, laryngeal view, and incidence of sore throat among anesthetized, non-paralyzed patients undergoing general anesthesia.

Methods

In this prospective single-blinded study, 60 patients were randomized to use either LMA Protector™ Cuff Pilot™ or LMA Supreme™. Both groups received standard monitoring and induction regimes. Post-insertion, a bronchoscope was used to verify its position. A gastric tube was inserted and OLP was measured. Patients were assessed during the post-operative period for sore throats.

Results

LMA Protector™ Cuff Pilot™ was comparable to LMA Supreme™ in terms of mean OLP (30.72±8.60 vs 27.23±8.09 cmH₂O, P = 0.114), first successful attempt (P = 0.312), mean insertion time (27.72±9.45 vs 24.37±6.46 seconds, P = 0.116), and grade 1 laryngeal view (51.7% vs 36.7%, P = 0.244). At first attempt, LMA Protector™ Cuff Pilot™ had a lower success rate of gastric tube insertion than LMA Supreme™ (55.17% vs 96.67%, P <0.001). The incidence of the blood-stained device and sore throat post-operatively were comparable between the two groups.

Conclusion

LMA Protector™ Cuff Pilot™ was comparable to LMA Supreme™ in terms of overall clinical performance, except for the first successful gastric tube insertion. Improvements should be made to the gastric channel for easier gastric tube insertion in the LMA Protector™ Cuff Pilot™.

Abstract No.: ABS1132: A Comparative study of Oropharyngeal leak pressure in LMA ProtectorTM with cuff pilot vs LMA SupremeTM in paralysed patients: A prospective randomised clinical study

Background & Aims:

Oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) is the pressure at which a gas leaks around the airway, higher leak pressures, betterseal. Our primary aim was to measure OLP and Secondary aims were to measure Insertion Time, Numbers of Attempts,Ease of Insertion, and Postoperative complications.

Methods:

The study was carried out in 62 adult patients of ASA I & II which were randomized into 2 groups Group S (LMA SupremeTM) and Group P (LMA ProtectorTM) (n = 31 each) based on a computer‑generated random sequence table.

Respective LMA’s were inserted after general anaesthesia induction and OLP were measured at cuff pressure of 60 cmH2O in each group accordingly. Secondary Parameters such as insertion time, no of attempts of supraglottic airway devicesand gastric tube, ease of insertion were measured. Intraoperative haemodynamic parameters and postoperatively airwaymorbidity were also measured.

Results:

OLP were significantly higher (P<0.0001) for LMA Protectorâ„¢ compared to LMA Supremeâ„¢.The OLP in LMAProtectorâ„¢ group was 28.12 cmH2O (SD- 1.96) compared to 21.5 cmH2O (SD- 2.65) in LMA Supremeâ„¢ group. Insertiontime was significantly higher for the LMA Protectorâ„¢ (24.58 sec) compared to the LMA Supremeâ„¢ (16.67 sec) (P<0.0001). There were no statistically significant differences in ease of insertion, Numbers of Attempts, trauma, sorethroat, Dysphagia and Dysphonia.

Conclusion:

Oropharyngeal leak pressures were consistently higher (>5 cm H2O) for LMA Protectorâ„¢ compared to LMA Supremeâ„¢, Thus providing effective ventilation than LMA SupremeTM .

Comparison of I-gel and LMA Protector in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Aims

Comparison of the use of I-gel and Laringeal Mask Airway (LMA) Protector in laparoscopic cholecystectomy regarding the time and ease of insertion for supraglottic airway devices (SAD) and gastric tube (GT), airway sealing capacity, and postoperative complications.

Patients and Methods

Sixty-four American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) I-III patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomly allocated into two groups. After anesthesia induction, LMA Protector was inserted in Group LPRO (LMA Protector) (n = 33) and I-gel was inserted in Group IGEL (I-gel) (n = 31) patients. Time of SAD insertion, number of attempts, time, and ease of GT insertion were recorded. The peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) and oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) were measured at the time of SAD insertion, 10 min after insertion, 10 min after pneumoperitoneum, and just before the termination of pneumoperitoneum. The presence of bloodstains on SAD, sore throat, hoarseness, nausea, and pain in swallowing was assessed postoperatively. A P value of < 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant.

Result

Two patients in Group LPRO needed endotracheal intubation and were excluded from the study. The SAD insertion time was shorter in Group IGEL than in Group LPRO (13 ± 7.4 s vs. 18.8 ± 9.8 s). The number of attempts and success rate on the first attempt were similar in both groups. GT insertion time was shorter in Group IGEL than Group LPRO (11 ± 7.7 s vs. 21 ± 11 s). The insertion of GT was easier in Group IGEL. The OLP levels decreased during the pneumoperitoneum in Group LPRO while they remained constant in Group IGEL.

Conclusion

We observed that I-gel offers more stable airway sealing and easier GT insertion advantages when compared with LMA Protector in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Evaluation of the insertion parameters and complications of the i-gel Plus airway device for maintaining patent airway during planned procedures under general anaesthesia: a protocol for a prospective multicentre cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Supraglottic airway devices represent a less invasive method of airway management than tracheal intubation during general anaesthesia. Their continued development is focused mainly on improvements in the insertion success rate and minimalisation of perioperative and postoperative complications. The i-gel Plus is a novel, anatomically preshaped supraglottic airway device which achieves a perilaryngeal seal due to a non-inflatable cuff made of a soft thermoplastic elastomer. The purpose of this cohort study is to assess the success rate of the i-gel Plus use during elective procedures under general anaesthesia, its intraoperative performance, and the degree of postoperative complications.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a multicentre, prospective, interventional cohort study. The enrolment will take place in seven centres in four European countries. We plan to enrol 2000 adult patients in total, who are scheduled for elective surgery under general anaesthesia, and with an indication for use of a supraglottic airway device for management of their airway. The study is projected to run over a period of 18 months. The primary outcome of the study is the total success rate of the i-gel Plus insertion in terms of successful ventilation and oxygenation through the device. Secondary outcomes include perioperative parameters, such as insertion time, seal/leak pressures, number of insertion attempts and postoperative adverse events and complications. Postoperative follow-up will be performed at 1 hour, 24 hours in all patients, and for selected patients at 3 and 6 months.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The cohort study has received the following ethical approvals: General University Hospital Prague, University Hospital Olomouc, University Military Hospital Prague, University Hospital Barcelona, University Hospital Lodz, Antrim Area Hospital, Craigavon Area Hospital, Office for Research Ethics Committees Northern Ireland. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant anaesthesia conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN86233693;Pre-results.

An Exploration and Technical Notes for Advanced Airway Management on the Ski Slope: A Simulation Experiment

Background

Skiing is a high-risk winter sport, and the rate of injury fatality is the highest compared to other winter sports. During skiing rescue, the harsh natural environments will increase the difficulty of artificial airway establishment. There has been no research focusing on the establishment of the artificial airway during skiing rescue site. This study aims to simulate the real-world scenario, calculating and comparing the operation time of different artificial airways on the cold slope, and to explore the optimal method of establishing artificial airway on the cold slope, sharing our experience, technical notes, and pitfalls we encountered, hoping to help establish a standard operating procedure in advanced airway management on the ski slope.

Methods

The simulated human was placed on the cold slope with the head under the feet. Artificial airway was established by the same anesthesiologist using endotracheal intubation (endotracheal intubation group), LMA Supreme laryngeal mask (LMA group), and I-gel laryngeal mask (I-gel group). Each method was repeated 5 times, and the operation time and whether it was successful by one attempt were recorded and compared between groups.

Results

Three groups of artificial airway were successful by one attempt.. The bite block dropped and drifted away for one time in the endotracheal intubation group. Operation time is 209.2 ± 32.7 seconds in the endotracheal intubation group, 72.2 ± 3.1 seconds in the LMA group, and 52.6 ± 4.2 seconds in the I-gel group. ANOVA showed that there was a significant difference in the operation time among the three groups (p < 0.001). Tukey's post hoc test showed that there were statistically significant differences between the endotracheal intubation group and the other two groups in operation time, p < 0.001, while there was no significant difference between the LMA group and I-gel group (p=0.275).

Conclusion

The artificial airway can be completed by endotracheal intubation and LMA and I-gel laryngeal mask insertion on the cold slope. Artificial airway with the I-gel laryngeal mask takes the shortest time in this study. Extra caution should be paid to slippery and drifting.

Comparison of LMA® gastro airway and gastro-laryngeal tube in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a prospective randomized observational trial

BACKGROUND

New generation airway devices with different designs have been developed as an alternative to endotracheal intubation in order to avoid adverse events associated with sedation in endoscopic procedures and to provide patent airway. We aimed to compare two supraglottic airway devices (SGADs), the LMA®GastroTM Airway and Gastro Laryngeal Tube (GLT), in terms of airway efficiency, performance during procedure and adverse events in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS

A hundred-three ERCP patients without high risk of aspiration were included. Patients were randomly allocated to the LMA Gastro and GLT groups. The primary study outcomes were the comparison of the two SGADs in terms of oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP). Secondary study outcome was SGADs-related adverse events.

RESULTS

Procedures were completed with SGADs in fifty patients in each group. The rate of successful insertion at first attempt was 72% in GLT and 96% in LMA Gastro (p=0.004). The mean OLP of LMA Gastro Group (31.8cm H2O) was significantly higher than that of the GLT Group (26.5cm H2O), (p=0.0001). However endoscopists' satisfaction was higher in GLT (p=0.0001). Mucosal damage and sore throat were lower in LMA Gastro Group.

CONCLUSIONS

LMA® Gastro™ had a higher OLP than GLT. However, GLT was better for endoscopist satisfaction, as it provides more satisfying maneuverability. As to secondary outcome advers events were lower in LMA® Gastro™. The lower complication rates associated with the device and providing a more patent airway also highlighted the apparent clinical efficacy of LMA® Gastro™ than GLT, in ERCP.

Life threatening abscess in the visceral space with penicillin and metronidazole resistant Prevotella Denticola following use of a laryngeal mask airway: case report

Background

Laryngeal mask airways (LMA) are commonly used for airway management. Complications with this device are rare. However, when they do occur, there is a high risk for respiratory problems, necessitating early diagnosis and treatment. We present the first case of a life-threatening abscess spreading in the visceral space caused by a penicillin and metronidazole resistant Prevotella Denticola after the use of an LMA.

Case presentation

A female patient was admitted to our day care centre for bunion surgery. A single use LMA size 3 (Solus®, intersurgical, Wokingham, Berkshire, United Kingdom) was successfully inserted. After surgery, the patient complained of a sore throat and amoxicillin was prescribed by the general practitioner. Three days after surgery the patient was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) for obstructive breathing, due to an abscess in the visceral space. Retropharyngeal and certainly parapharyngeal abscesses in adults are already rare. This case however, is unique because it is the first case of abscess spreading into the visceral space after the use of an LMA. Amoxicillin/clavulanate and vancomycin were started. The abscess was incised 5 days later and microbiology showed 3 positive cultures of the anaerobe Prevotella denticola, resistant for penicillin and metronidazole, but sensitive for amoxicillin/clavulanate. The patient fully recovered.

Conclusion

LMA’s are easy to use and are established, safe tools to support ventilation of the airway. In this case, the authors hypothesise a small wound in the lateral pharyngeal wall probably created an opening into the visceral space causing infection with Prevotella denticola, supporting the idea that the pharyngeal mucosal space must be part of the visceral space. Additionally, early recognition and treatment of an LMA induced abscess is necessary to prevent evolution of complications leading to airway obstruction.