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

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.

Supraglottic airway device versus tracheal tube for pediatric laparoscopic surgery-A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Conventionally, tracheal tubes have been used for general anesthesia in pediatric laparoscopic surgeries. Recently, supraglottic devices are being used for the same. The performance of supraglottic devices versus tracheal tubes in children undergoing laparoscopic surgery is uncertain.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared supraglottic devices versus tracheal tubes in patients ≤18 years undergoing laparoscopic surgery under general anesthesia was conducted. The outcomes were peak airway pressures (cm H2 O), end-tidal carbon dioxide during pneumoperitoneum (mm Hg), recovery time (min), postoperative sore throat and adverse events. Mean difference and odds ratio, with 95% confidence intervals were reported using a random effect model.

RESULTS

Eight trials (n = 591) were included in the final meta-analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in the peak airway pressures (MD 0.58, 95% CI: -0.65 to 1.8; p = .36) and end-tidal carbon dioxide (MD -0.60, 95% CI: -2.00 to 0.80; p = .40) during pneumoperitoneum in the supraglottic device and the tracheal tube group. The tracheal tube group had higher odds of sore throat (OR 3.30, 95% CI: 1.69-6.45; p = .0005) and the supraglottic airway group had faster recovery time (MD 4.21, 95% CI: 3.12-5.31; p < .0001), which were statistically significant. The certainty of evidence is graded low.

CONCLUSION

There is low quality evidence to suggest that for pediatric laparoscopic surgeries of short duration, supraglottic devices could provide comparable intraoperative ventilation in terms of peak airway pressures and end tidal carbon dioxide, with lower odds of postoperative sore throat and faster recovery time when compared to tracheal tubes.

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.

Is Laryngeal Mask a Good Alternative in Children Undergoing Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair with Percutaneous Internal Ring Suturing Under and Over Two Years Old?

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate respiratory parameters during percutaneous internal ring suturing (PIRS) for inguinal hernia repair in two different-aged pediatric patients in whom the airway is provided with a laryngeal mask or endotracheal tube for general anaesthesia.

Methods

After local ethics committee and parental consent, 180 ASAI-II children were randomly allocated to 4 groups; according to their age (0-24 months / 25-144 months) and airway device laryngeal mask (LMA) / endotracheal tube (ETT) used for general anaesthesia (45 children each) for laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Standard anaesthesia induction was done with lidocaine, propofol, and fentanyl, and 0.6 mg kg^-1 rocuronium was added to the ETT groups. Sevoflurane is used for maintenance. Hemodynamic parameters, peak airway pressure, end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO₂), and peripheric oxygen saturation (SpO₂) values were recorded after induction, before, and during pneumoperitoneum. The duration of anaesthesia, surgery, recovery time, and surgical satisfaction was recorded. Airway complications (cough, laryngospasm, bronchospasm, desaturation, and aspiration) were recorded.

Results

Hundred and eighty patients (45 in each group) were analyzed. Duration of surgery and surgical satisfaction were similar in all groups. Duration of anaesthesia and recovery times were significantly shorter in the LMA groups. Peak airway pressure and EtCO2 levels were significantly lower in the LMA groups. Rare airway complications were observed without significance.

Conclusion

In laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair with the PIRS technique, LMA offered comparable operating conditions and surgical satisfaction.

Second-generation supraglottic airway in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Supraglottic airway (SGA) may have advantages over endotracheal tube (ETT) regarding laryngospasm, coughing, sore throat, and hemodynamic changes; however, studies on the use of SGA in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) are lacking. Here, we aimed to confirm the safety and feasibility of second-generation SGA in LDN and compare them with those of ETT. Enrolled adult donors (aged > 18 years) who underwent LDN between August 2018 and November 2021 were divided into two groups-ETT vs. SGA. Airway pressure, lung compliance, desaturation, and hypercapnia were recorded during surgery. After propensity score matching for baseline characteristics and surgical duration, 82 and 152 donors were included in the ETT and SGA groups, respectively, and their outcomes were compared. The peak airway pressure was lower in the SGA group than in the ETT group 5 min after pneumoperitoneum. Dynamic lung compliance was higher in the SGA group than in the ETT group during surgery. There were no cases of intraoperative desaturation, hypercapnia, or postoperative aspiration pneumonitis. The use of second-generation SGA, a safe alternative to ETT for LDN, resulted in reduced airway resistance and increased lung compliance, which suggests its benefits for airway management in kidney donors.

The Influence of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure on Leakage and Oxygenation Using a Laryngeal Mask Airway: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

The value of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in maintaining oxygenation during ventilation with a laryngeal mask airway (LMA) mask is unclear. To clarify the potential benefit or harm to PEEP application during positive pressure ventilation with a ProSeal LMA® mask, we compared the effect of PEEP versus zero end-expiratory pressure (ZEEP) on gas leakage and oxygenation. We hypothesized that a PEEP of 8 mbar (8.2 cm H2O) would be associated with an increased incidence of gas leakage compared to ZEEP.

METHODS

We designed a prospective, controlled, randomized, single-blinded, multicenter clinical trial. Patients >18 years of age with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I/II without increased risk of aspiration were enrolled if they were scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia with an LMA mask. Patients were randomized to a control group managed with ZEEP or an intervention group managed with a PEEP of 8 mbar. Both groups received positive pressure ventilation. The primary end point was the occurrence of gas leakage. The Student t test and χ2 test were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 174 patients were enrolled in the ZEEP group, and 208 were enrolled in the PEEP group. The incidence of gas leakage did not differ between the 2 groups (ZEEP: 23/174, 13.2%; PEEP: 42/208, 20.2%; P = .071; odds ratio [OR], 1.611; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.954-2.891). However, more patients required reseating of the LMA mask in the PEEP group (ZEEP: 5/174, 2.9%; PEEP: 18/208, 8.7%; P = .018; OR, 3.202; 95% CI, 1.164-8.812). The need for endotracheal intubation did not differ between groups (ZEEP: 2/174, 1.1%; PEEP: 7/208, 3.4%; P = .190; OR, 2.995; 95% CI, 0.614-14.608). After positive pressure ventilation for 25 minutes, the mean peripheral oxygen saturation (Spo2) was higher in the PEEP than in the ZEEP group (98.5 [1.9]% vs 98.0 [1.4]%; P = .01). Peak inspiratory pressure (PIP; 16 [2] vs 12 [4] mbar; P < .001) and dynamic compliance (57 [14] vs 49 [14] mL/mbar; P < .001) were both higher in the PEEP group than in the ZEEP group.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of PEEP did not affect the overall incidence of gas leakage. However, PEEP did result in a higher incidence of attempts to reseat the LMA mask compared to ZEEP, whereas the incidence of rescue intubation did not differ between groups. We concluded that a PEEP of 8 mbar did not increase overall gas leakage during positive pressure ventilation with an LMA mask, but it did slightly improve gas exchange and compliance. Overall, our study does not provide strong arguments for using PEEP during ventilation with an LMA mask in elective surgery.