Laryngeal mask airway protector™: Advanced uses for laparoscopic cholecystectomies

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.

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

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

Unilateral hypoglossal nerve palsy after the use of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) Protector

BACKGROUND

The laryngeal mask airway (LMAⓇ) ProtectorTM (Teleflex Medical Co., Ireland) is the latest innovation in the second generation of LMA devices. One distinguishing feature of this device is its integrated, color-coded cuff pressure indicator (Cuff PilotTM technology) which enables continuous cuff pressure monitoring and allows adjustments when necessary; this ensures patient safety due to better monitoring.

CASE

We report a case of postoperative unilateral hypoglossal nerve palsy after uncomplicated use of the LMA Protector. To the best of our knowledge, this could be the second reported case.

CONCLUSIONS

This case demonstrates that anesthetists need to routinely measure cuff pressure and that the Cuff PilotTM technology is not a panacea for potential cranial nerve injury after airway manipulation.

Comparison of early postoperative recovery between laryngeal mask airway and endotracheal tube in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion provokes fewer stress responses than endotracheal intubation. This study aimed to evaluate the LMA Protector for assessing improvements in intraoperative hemodynamic stability and to reduce postoperative discomfort compared with endotracheal intubation in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

Fifty-six patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy while under sevoflurane-based general anesthesia were randomly allocated to airway management using LMA (LMA group) or endotracheal tube (ETT group). Heart rate, blood pressure, and peak airway pressure were recorded before and after carboperitoneum. Postoperative pain and analgesic requirements were assessed, in addition to nausea, hoarseness, dysphonia, and sore throat during the first 1 hour postoperatively and until postoperative day 1.

RESULTS

All patients underwent successful LMA or ETT placement within 2 attempts. There was no difference in highest mean (SD) peak airway pressure during carboperitoneum between the LMA and ETT groups (17.7 [2.8] mm Hg vs 19.1 [3.8] mm Hg, P = .159, respectively). The incidence of high systolic blood pressure and bradycardia was higher in the LMA group. The highest pain scores 1 hour postoperatively and on postoperative day 1 were lower in the LMA group than in the ETT group (3.9 [2.0] vs 5.4 [2.3], P = .017 and 5.6 [1.9] vs 6.7 [1.7], P = .042, respectively); requirements for analgesics were similar in the 2 groups. The incidence of nausea was lower in the LMA group than in the ETT group until postoperative day 1 (4/28 [14%] vs 12/28 [43%], P = .031, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The LMA Protector was an effective ventilator device associated with fewer intraoperative hemodynamic stress responses and improved the quality of early recovery after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

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

The laryngeal mask airway (LMA) Protector™ has recently made its way into clinical practice. As little is reported on this novel supraglottic airway device, we describe our experiences through intubation and Bailey manoeuvre using the LMA Protector™, and the assessment of vocal cord mobility using a flexible bronchoscope through it in three patients undergoing hemithyroidectomies.