A randomized prospective controlled trial comparing the laryngeal tube suction disposable and the supreme laryngeal mask airway: the influence of head and neck position on oropharyngeal seal pressure

Mostafa Somri, Sonia Vaida, Gustavo Garcia Fornari, Gabriela Renee Mendoza, Pedro Charco-Mora, Naser Hawash, Ibrahim Matter, Forat Swaid, Luis Gaitini, Mostafa Somri, Sonia Vaida, Gustavo Garcia Fornari, Gabriela Renee Mendoza, Pedro Charco-Mora, Naser Hawash, Ibrahim Matter, Forat Swaid, Luis Gaitini

Abstract

Background: The Laryngeal Tube Suction Disposable (LTS-D) and the Supreme Laryngeal Mask Airway (SLMA) are second generation supraglottic airway devices (SADs) with an added channel to allow gastric drainage. We studied the efficacy of these devices when using pressure controlled mechanical ventilation during general anesthesia for short and medium duration surgical procedures and compared the oropharyngeal seal pressure in different head and-neck positions.

Methods: Eighty patients in each group had either LTS-D or SLMA for airway management. The patients were recruited in two different institutions. Primary outcome variables were the oropharyngeal seal pressures in neutral, flexion, extension, right and left head-neck position. Secondary outcome variables were time to achieve an effective airway, ease of insertion, number of attempts, maneuvers necessary during insertion, ventilatory parameters, success of gastric tube insertion and incidence of complications.

Results: The oropharyngeal seal pressure achieved with the LTS-D was higher than the SLMA in, (extension (p=0.0150) and right position (p=0.0268 at 60 cm H2O intracuff pressures and nearly significant in neutral position (p = 0.0571). The oropharyngeal seal pressure was significantly higher with the LTS-D during neck extension as compared to SLMA (p= 0.015). Similar oropharyngeal seal pressures were detected in all other positions with each device. The secondary outcomes were comparable between both groups. Patients ventilated with LTS-D had higher incidence of sore throat (p = 0.527). No major complications occurred.

Conclusions: Better oropharyngeal seal pressure was achieved with the LTS-D in head-neck right and extension positions , although it did not appear to have significance in alteration of management using pressure control mechanical ventilation in neutral position. The fiberoptic view was better with the SLMA. The post-operative sore throat incidence was higher in the LTS-D.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02856672 , Unique Protocol ID:BnaiZionMC-16-LG-001, Registered: August 2016.

Keywords: Laryngeal tube; Oropharyngeal seal pressure; Supreme laryngeal mask airway.

Figures

Fig.1
Fig.1
Supreme Laryngeal Mask Airway
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Laryngeal Tube Suction Disposable

References

    1. Schalk R, Scheller B, Habler OP, Meier J, Meininger D, Byhahn C. Disposable laryngeal tube suction--a randomized comparison of two insertion techniques performed by novice users in anaesthetised patients. Resuscitation. 2008;76:364–8. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2007.08.018.
    1. Schaeuble J. Laryngeal tube suction disposable: a stylet-assisted insertion technique 2. Anaesthesia. 2011;66:848–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06848.x.
    1. van Zundert A, Brimacombe J. The LMA Supreme – a pilot study. Anaesthesia. 2008;63:202–13. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2007.05416_1.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;101:405–10. doi: 10.1093/bja/aen174.
    1. Hosten T, Gurkan Y, Ozdamar D, Tekin M, Toker K, Solak M. A new supraglottic airway device: LMA-Supreme, comparison with LMA-Proseal. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2009;53:852–85. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2009.01986.x.
    1. Mihai R, Knottenbelt G, Cook TM. Evaluation of the revised laryngeal tube suction: the laryngeal tube suction II in 100 patients. Br J Anaesth. 2007;99:734–9. doi: 10.1093/bja/aem260.
    1. Seet E, Rajeev S, Firoz T, Yousaf F, Wong J, Wong DT, Chunq F. Safety and efficacy of laryngeal mask airway Supreme versus laryngeal mask airway ProSeal: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010;27:602–7. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e32833679e3.
    1. Maitra S, Khanna P, Baidya DK. Comparison of laryngeal mask airway Supreme and laryngeal mask airway Pro-Seal for controlled ventilation during general anaesthesia in adult patients: systematic review with meta-analysis. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2014;31:266–73. doi: 10.1097/01.EJA.0000435015.89651.3d.
    1. Ophir N, Ramaty E, Rajuan-Galor I, Rosman Y, Lavon O, Shrot S, et al. Airway control in case of a mass toxicological event: superiority of second-generation supraglottic airway devices. Am J Emerg Med. 2014;32:1445–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2014.08.067.
    1. Genzwuerker HV, Altmayer S, Hinkelbein J, Gernoth C, Viergutz T, Ocker H. Prospective randomized comparison of the new Laryngeal Tube Suction LTS II and the LMA-ProSeal for elective surgical interventions. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2007;51:1373–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2007.01440.x.
    1. Gaitini LA, Vaida SJ, Somri M, Yanovski B, Ben-David B, Hagberg CA. A randomized controlled trial comparing the ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway with the Laryngeal Tube Suction in mechanically ventilated patients. Anesthesiology. 2004;101:316–20. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200408000-00011.
    1. Keller C, Brimacombe J, Keller K, Morris R. A comparison of four methods for assessing airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in adult patients. Br J Anaesth. 1999;82:286–7. doi: 10.1093/bja/82.2.286.
    1. Brimacombe J, Berry A. A proposed fiber-optic scoring system to standardize the assessment of laryngeal mask airway position. Anesth Analg. 1993;76:457.
    1. Cook TM, McKinstry C, Hardy R, Twigg S. Randomized crossover comparison of the ProSealTM laryngeal mask airway with the Laryngeal Tube® during anaesthesia with controlled ventilation. Br J Anaesth. 2003;91:678–83. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeg239.
    1. Kikuchi T, Kamiya Y, Ohtsuka T, Miki T, Goto T. Randomized prospective study comparing the laryngeal tube suction II with the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized and paralyzed patients. Anesthesiology. 2008;109:54–60. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318178819b.
    1. Russo SG, Cremer S, Galli T, Eich C, Bräuer A, Crozier TA, et al. Randomized comparison of the i-gel™, the LMA Supreme™, and the Laryngeal Tube Suction-D using clinical and fibreoptic assessments in elective patients. BMC Anesthesiol. 2012;12:18. doi: 10.1186/1471-2253-12-18.
    1. Abdi W, Dhonneur G, Amathieu R, Adhoum A, Kamoun W, Slavov V, et al. LMA supreme versus facemask ventilation performed by novices: a comparative study in morbidly obese patients showing difficult ventilaton predictors. Obes Surg. 2009;19:1624–30. doi: 10.1007/s11695-009-9953-0.
    1. Beleña JM1, 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. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2011.01.004.
    1. Tham HM, Tan SM, Woon KL, Zhao YD. A comparison of the Supreme laryngeal mask airway with the Proseal laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized paralyzed adult patients: a randomized crossover study. Can J Anesth. 2010;57:672–678. doi: 10.1007/s12630-010-9312-6.
    1. Asai T. Difficulty in assessing the correct position of the laryngeal mask airway. Br J Anaesth. 1994;72:366. doi: 10.1093/bja/72.3.366.
    1. Joshi S, Sciacca RR, Solanki DR, Young WL, Mathru MM. A prospective evaluation of clinical tests for placement of laryngeal mask airways. Anesthesiology. 1998;89:1141–6. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199811000-00014.
    1. Berry AM, Brimacombe JR, McManus KF, Goldblatt M. An evaluation of the factors influencing selection of the optimal size of laryngeal mask airway in normal adults. Anesthesia. 1998;53:565–70. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2044.1998.00403.x.
    1. Brimacombe J, Keller C. Stability of the LMA-ProSeal and standard laryngeal mask airway in different head and neck positions: a randomized crossover study. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2003;20:65–9. doi: 10.1097/00003643-200301000-00012.
    1. Isserles SA, Rozenberg B. LMA: reduction of gas leak. Can J Anaesth. 1995;42:449. doi: 10.1007/BF03015498.
    1. Keller C, Brimacombe J. The influence of head and neck position on oropharyngeal leak pressure and cuff position with the flexible and the standard laryngeal mask airway. Anesth Analg. 1999;88:913–6. doi: 10.1213/00000539-199904000-00042.
    1. Park SH, Han SH, Do SH, Kim JW, Kim JH. The influence of head and neck position on the oropharyngeal leak pressure and cuff position of three supraglottic airway devices. Anesth Analg. 2009;108:112–7. doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e318192376f.
    1. Schalk R, Byhahn C, Fausel F, Egner A, Oberndörfer D, Walcher F, et al. Out-of-hospital airway management by paramedics and emergency physicians using laryngeal tubes. Resuscitation. 2010;81:323–26. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.11.007.
    1. Cook TM, Gatward JJ, Handel J, Hardy R, Thompson C, Srivastava R, et al. Evaluation of the LMA Supreme in 100 non-paralysed patients. Anaesthesia. 2009;64:555–62. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05824.x.
    1. Zhang L, Seet E, Mehta V, Subramanyam R, Ankichetty SP, Wong DT, et al. Oropharyngeal leak pressure with the laryngeal mask airway Supreme™ at different intracuff pressures: a randomized controlled trial. Can J Anaesth. 2011;58:624–9. doi: 10.1007/s12630-011-9514-6.
    1. Teoh WH, Lee KM, Suhitharan T, Yahya Z, Teo MM, Sia AT. Comparison of the LMA Supreme vs the i-gel in paralyzed patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery with controlled ventilation. Anaesthesia. 2010;65:1173–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2010.06534.x.
    1. Cook TM, Cranshaw J. Randomized crossover comparison of ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway with Laryngeal Tube Sonda during anaesthesia with controlled ventilation. Br J Anaesth. 2005;95:261–6. doi: 10.1093/bja/aei167.
    1. Agro F, Antonelli S, Cataldo R, Mentechiccia F, Barzoi G, Pettiti T. The Proseal Laryngeal Mask Airway: fibreoptic vizualisation of the glottis opening is associated with ease of insertion of the gastric tube. Can J Anaesth. 2002;49:867–70. doi: 10.1007/BF03017422.
    1. Lee AK, Tey JB, Lim Y, Sia AT. Comparison of the single-use LMA supreme with the reusable ProSeal LMA for anaesthesia in gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2009;37:815–9.
    1. Bergmann I, Crozier TA, Roessler M, Schotola H, Mansur A, Büttner B, et al. The effect of changing the sequence of cuff inflation and device position, ventilatory complications, and airway morbidity: a clinical and fiberscopic study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2014;14:2. doi: 10.1186/1471-2253-14-2.
    1. Dingley J, Whitehead MJ, Wareham K. A comparative study of the incidence of sore throat with the laryngeal mask airway. Anaesthesia. 1994;49:251–4. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1994.tb03434.x.
    1. Rieger A, Brunne B, Hass I, Brummer G, Spies C, Striebel HW, et al. Laryngo-pharyngeal complaints following laryngeal mask airway and endotracheal intubation. J Clin Anesth. 1997;9:42–7. doi: 10.1016/S0952-8180(96)00209-7.
    1. Cork RC, Depa RM, Standen JR. Prospective comparison of useof the laryngeal mask and endotracheal tube for ambulatory surgery. Anesth Analg. 1994;79:719–27. doi: 10.1213/00000539-199410000-00018.
    1. Harding CJ, McVey FK. Interview method affects incidence of postoperative sore throat. Anaesthesia. 1987;42:1104–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1987.tb05179.x.
    1. Maino P, Dullenkopf A, Bernet V, Weiss M. Nitrous oxide diffusion into the cuffs of disposable laryngeal mask airways. Anaesthesia. 2005;60:278–82. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2004.04072.x.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться