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

Emilie Acx, Els Van Caelenberg, Luc De Baerdemaeker, Marc Coppens, Emilie Acx, Els Van Caelenberg, Luc De Baerdemaeker, Marc Coppens

Abstract

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: https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT03462550" title="See in ClinicalTrials.gov">NCT03462550.

Keywords: Laryngeal mask; laryngeal mask airway protector; supraglottic airway device.

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

Copyright: © 2021 Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Oropharyngeal airway leak pressures at different cuff volumes and cuff pressure of 65 cm H2O

References

    1. Bell SF, Morris NG, Rao A, Wilkes AR, Goodwin N. A randomised crossover trial comparing a single-use polyvinyl chloride laryngeal mask airway with a single-use silicone laryngeal mask airway. Anaesthesia. 2012;67:1337–42.
    1. Hanning SJ, McCulloch TJ, Orr B, Anderson SP. A comparison of the oropharyngeal leak pressure between the reusable Classic laryngeal mask airway and the single-use Soft Seal laryngeal mask airway. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2006;34:237–9.
    1. Howath A, Brimacombe J, Keller C, Kihara S. Gum elastic bougie-guided placement of the ProSeal laryngeal mask. Can J Anaesth. 2002;49:528–9.
    1. Eschertzhuber S, Brimacombe J, Hohlrieder M, Keller C. The laryngeal mask airway Supreme--A single use laryngeal mask airway with an oesophageal vent. A randomised, cross-over study with the laryngeal mask airway ProSeal in paralysed, anaesthetised patients. Anaesthesia. 2009;64:79–83.
    1. Moser B, Keller C, Audige L, Bruppacher HR. Oropharyngeal leak pressure of the LMA Protector vs the LMA Supreme; a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2019;63:322–8.
    1. Belena JM, Nunez M, Anta D, Carnero M, Gracia JL, Ayala JL, et al. Comparison of Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme and Laryngeal Mask Airway Proseal with respect to oropharyngeal leak pressure during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2013;30:119–23.
    1. Belena JM, Gracia JL, Ayala JL, Núñez M, Lorenzo JA, de los Reyes A, et al. The laryngeal mask airway supreme for positive pressure ventilation during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Clin Anesth. 2011;23:456–60.
    1. Belena JM, Nunez M, Vidal A, Gasco C, Gilsanz C, Alcojor A, et al. Use of second generation supra-glottic airway devices during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A prospective, randomized comparison of LMA Proseal, LMA Supreme and igel. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg. 2016;67:121–8.
    1. Belena JM, Ochoa EJ, Nunez M, Gilsanz C, Vidal A. Role of laryngeal mask airway in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;7:319–25.
    1. Hosten T, Yildiz TS, Kus A, Solak M, Toker K. Comparison of supreme laryngeal mask airway and proseal laryngeal mask airway during cholecystectomy. Balkan Med J. 2012;29:314–9.
    1. Viira D, Myles PS. The use of the laryngeal mask in gynaecological laparoscopy. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2004;32:560–3.
    1. Verghese C, Brimacombe JR. Survey of laryngeal mask airway usage in 11,910 patients: Safety and efficacy for conventional and nonconventional usage. Anesth Analg. 1996;82:129–33.
    1. Tan LZ TD, Seet E. Laryngeal mask airway protector™: Advanced uses for laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Indian J Anaesth. 2018:61:673–5.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する