The air-Q(®) intubating laryngeal airway vs the LMA-ProSeal(TM) : a prospective, randomised trial of airway seal pressure

Abstract

We performed a prospective, open-label, randomised controlled trial comparing the air-Q(®) against the LMA-ProSeal™ in adults undergoing general anaesthesia. One hundred subjects (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1-3) presenting for elective, outpatient surgery were randomly assigned to 52 air-Q(®) and 48 ProSeal devices. The primary study endpoint was airway seal pressure. Oropharyngolaryngeal morbidity was assessed secondarily. Mean (SD) airway seal pressures for the air-Q(®) and ProSeal were 30 (7) cmH (2) O and 30 (6) cmH(2) O, respectively (p = 0.47). Postoperative sore throat was more common with the air-Q(®) (46% vs 38%, p = 0.03) as was pain on swallowing (30% vs 5%, p = 0.01). In conclusion, the air-Q(®) performs well as a primary airway during the maintenance of general anaesthesia with an airway seal pressure similar to that of the ProSeal, but with a higher incidence of postoperative oropharyngolaryngeal complaints.

© 2011 The Authors. Anaesthesia © 2011 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland.

Figures

Figure 1

Haemodynamic and respiratory characteristics after placement of the air-Q (●) and ProSeal (□). Values are mean (and for clarity, error bars are SEM).

Figure 2

From left to right, comparison of the overall sizes and the bowl-to-cuff relationships of the size 5 LMA-Classic™, size 4.5 air-Q®, size 4 LMA-Classic™, size 3.5 air-Q® and size 3 LMA-Classic™ (top). Note the overall dimensions of the air-Q® are intermediate to the respective LMA-Classic™. This is illustrated graphically by tracing the cuff of the device from the top part of the figure (bottom).