Comparison of the Supreme™ and ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airways in infants: a prospective randomised clinical study

Sibel Oba, Hacer Sebnem Turk, Canan Tulay Isil, Huseyin Erdogan, Pinar Sayin, Ali Ihsan Dokucu, Sibel Oba, Hacer Sebnem Turk, Canan Tulay Isil, Huseyin Erdogan, Pinar Sayin, Ali Ihsan Dokucu

Abstract

Background: The Supreme™ and ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airways (LMAs) are widely used in paediatric anaesthesia; however, LMA use in infants is limited because many anaesthesiologists prefer to use tracheal intubation in infants. In this study, we compared the Supreme and ProSeal LMAs in infants by measuring their performance characteristics, including insertion features, ventilation parameters, induced changes in haemodynamics and rates of postoperative complications.

Methods: Infants of ASA physical status I scheduled for elective, minor, lower abdominal surgery were divided into two groups: the Supreme LMA group and the ProSeal LMA group. Times and ease of LMA insertion were noted. The percentages of tidal volume leakage as well as peak, mean and leakage pressures for all infants were measured. Heart rate (HR), oxygen saturation (SpO2) and end tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO2) values were recorded before and after LMA insertion and before and after extubation. After extubation, complications and adverse effects were noted.

Results: Demographic and surgical data were similar between the two groups. LMA insertion times were shorter for the ProSeal group than for the Supreme group (P < 0.002). The mean HR value for the ProSeal group was lower than for the Supreme group (P < 0.011). Both the peak pressure and the leakage percentage for the ProSeal group were statistically lower than for the Supreme group. The leakage pressure for the ProSeal group was statistically higher than for the Supreme group (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: The ProSeal LMA is superior to the Supreme LMA for use in infants due to the ease of insertion, high oropharyngeal leakage pressure and fewer induced changes in haemodynamics.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT03251105 , retrospectively registered on 15 Aug 2017.

Keywords: Infants; Laryngeal mask airway ProSeal; Laryngeal mask airway Supreme.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This prospective study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Sisli Hamidiye Etfal Education and Research Hospital (SEEAH/26.04.2016/659); verbal and written informed consent was obtained from the parents of all infants participating in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
CONSORT flow diagram

References

    1. Lucie V, Harkouk H, Brasher C, Michelet D, Hilly J, Maesani M, Diallo T, Mangalsuren N, Nivoche Y, Dahmani S. Supraglottic airway devices vs tracheal intubation in children: a quantitative meta-analysis of respiratory complications. Paediatr Anaesth. 2014;24:1088–1098. doi: 10.1111/pan.12495.
    1. Kim MS, Lee JH, Han SW, Im YJ, Kang HJ, Lee JR. A randomized comparison of the i-gel with the self-pressurized air-Q intubating laryngeal airway in children. Paediatr Anaesth. 2015;25:405–412. doi: 10.1111/pan.12609.
    1. Kim J, Kim JY, Kim WO, Kil HK. An ultrasound evaluation of laryngeal mask airway position in pediatric patients: an observational study. Anesth Analg. 2015;120:427–432. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000551.
    1. Jagannathan N, Ramsey MA, White MC, Sohn L. An update on newer pediatric supraglottic airways with recommendations for clinical use. Paediatr Anaesth. 2015;25:334–345. doi: 10.1111/pan.12614.
    1. Aydogmus MT, Eksioglu B, Oba S, Unsal O, Türk HS, Sinikoglu SN, Tug A. Comparison of laryngeal mask airway supreme and laryngeal mask airway proseal for laryngopharyngeal trauma and postoperative morbidity in children. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2013;63:445–449. doi: 10.1016/j.bjan.2012.08.002.
    1. Sanket B, Ramavakoda CY, Nishtala MR, Ravishankar CK, Ganigara A. Comparison of second-generation supraglottic airway devices (i-gel versus LMA ProSeal) during elective surgery in children. AANA J. 2015;83:275–280.
    1. Black AE, Flynn PE, Smith HL, Thomas ML, Wilkinson KA. Development of a guideline for the management of the unanticipated difficult airway in pediatric practice. Paediatr Anaesth. 2015;25:346–362. doi: 10.1111/pan.12615.
    1. Trevisanuto D, Cavallin F, Nguyen LN, Nguyen TV, Tran LD, Tran CD, Doglioni N, Micaglio M, Moccia L. Supreme laryngeal mask airway versus face mask during neonatal resuscitation: a randomized controlled trial. J Pediatr. 2015;167:286–291. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2015.04.051.
    1. Balkan BK, Günenç F, Iyilikçi L, Gökel E, Yaman A, Berk AT. The laryngeal mask airway (LMA) in paediatric ophthalmic anaesthesia practice. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2005;22:77–79. doi: 10.1097/00003643-200501000-00020.
    1. Bhardwaj N, Yaddanapudi S, Singh S, Pandav SS. Insertion of laryngeal mask airway does not increase the intraocular pressure in children with glaucoma. Paediatr Anaesth. 2011;21:1036–1040. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2011.03674.x.
    1. Kim MS, Oh JT, Min JY, Lee KH, Lee JR. A randomised comparison of the i-gel™ and the laryngeal mask airway classic™ in infants. Anaesthesia. 2014;69:362–367. doi: 10.1111/anae.12592.
    1. Ali A, Canturk S, Turkmen A, Turgut N, Altan A. Comparison of the laryngeal mask airway supreme and laryngeal mask airway classic in adults. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2009;26:1010–1014. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e3283313fdd.
    1. Goldmann K, Roettger C, Wulf H. The size 1(1/2) ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in infants: a randomized, crossover investigation with the classic laryngeal mask airway. Anesth Analg. 2006;102:405–410. doi: 10.1213/01.ane.0000194300.56739.1a.
    1. Pant D, Koul A, Sharma B, Sood J. A comparative study of laryngeal mask airway size 1 vs. i-gel size 1 in infants undergoing daycare procedures. Paediatr Anaesth. 2015;25:386–391. doi: 10.1111/pan.12555.
    1. Hollande J, Riou B, Guerrero M, Landault C, Viars P. Comparison of hemodynamic effects of the laryngeal mask and the orotracheal tube. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 1993;12:372–375. doi: 10.1016/S0750-7658(05)80103-0.
    1. Teoh WH, Lee KM, Suhitharan T, Yahaya Z, Teo MM, Sia AT. Comparison of the LMA supreme vs the i-gel in paralysed patients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopic surgery with controlled ventilation. Anaesthesia. 2010;65:1173–1179. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2010.06534.x.
    1. Verghese C, Ramaswamy B. LMA-supreme--a new single-use LMA with gastric access: a report on its clinical efficacy. Br J Anaesth. 2008;101:405–410. doi: 10.1093/bja/aen174.
    1. Wilson IG, Fell D, Robinson SL, Smith G. Cardiovascular responses to insertion of the laryngeal mask. Anaesthesia. 1992;47:300–302. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1992.tb02168.x.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit