RESUMEN

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.

RESUMEN

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.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Recent advances in airway management have led to supraglottic airway devices (SAD) being increasingly often chosen instead of tracheal intubation for laparoscopic surgery. However, there are ongoing arguments regarding the use of SAD due to worries about the risks of insufficient ventilation and pulmonary aspiration. The LMA Protector is a second generation SAD which was put into use recently. This prospective randomised trial investigated whether the LMA Protector was comparable to the tracheal tube regarding respiratory parameters, perioperative complications and haemodynamic parameters in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 154 adult patients were randomised to two groups: Group 1 (tracheal intubation) and Group 2 (LMA Protector). Achieving adequate depth of anaesthesia, the patients were either intubated or the LMA Protector was placed. The initial baseline measurements were recorded including tidal volume, peak inspiratory pressure (PIP), oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) and haemodynamic parameters. These measurements were repeated and recorded again following pneumoperitoneum and recovery from anaesthesia. RESULTS: At the mean age of 52.22 ± 13.90 years 77 patients were intubated and in 77 patients the LMA Protector was applied. Following insertion of the airway device and pneumoperitoneum, the heart rate was higher in the intubation group. In the LMA Protector group OLP measures were found to be statistically similar. The mean Brimacombe fibreoptic visualisation score was 2.12 ± 0.58 and the rate of requirement of optimisation was 15% in the LMA Protector group. CONCLUSIONS: With high OLP, better haemodynamic parameters and low laryngeal view scores, we concluded that the LMA Protector can be used safely in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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™.

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: In the present study, we compare the LMA-Protector™ and the i-gel™ in terms of adequacy of the airway seal, insertion time, ease and accuracy of insertion, and the incidence of postoperative sore throat. METHODS: In 110 anesthetized and paralyzed adult patients, the i-gel™ (n = 55) or the LMA-Protector™ (n = 55) was inserted. The primary outcome was airway leak pressure. The secondary outcomes included the first-attempt success rate, insertion time, ease and accuracy of the device insertion, ease of gastric tube placement, blood staining on the device after removal, and incidence and severity of postoperative sore throat. RESULTS: The airway leak pressure was higher with the LMA-Protector™ than with the i-gel™ (31 [7] cmH2O vs. 27 [6] cmH2O, respectively; P = 0.016). Insertion time was longer with the LMA-Protector™ than with the i-gel™ (27 [16] sec vs. 19 [16] sec, respectively, P < 0.001), but ease of insertion and the first-attempt success rate were not different between the two groups. The LMA-Protector™ provided a worse fiberoptic view of the vocal cords and more difficult gastric tube insertion than the i-gel™ (both P < 0.001). Blood staining on the device was more frequent with the LMA-Protector™ than with the i-gel™ (P = 0.033). The incidence and severity of postoperative sore throat were not different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The LMA-Protector™ provided a better airway sealing effect than the i-gel™. However, it required a longer insertion time, provided a worse fiberoptic view of the vocal cords, and caused more mucosal injury compared to the i-gel™. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03078517). Registered prior to patient enrollment, Date of registration: Mar 13, 2017.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)