Comparision of Ambu AuraGain™ and LMA® ProSeal in children under controlled ventilation

Reesha Joshi, Priya Rudingwa, Pankaj Kundra, Sakthirajan Panneerselvam, Sandeep K Mishra, Reesha Joshi, Priya Rudingwa, Pankaj Kundra, Sakthirajan Panneerselvam, Sandeep K Mishra

Abstract

Background and aims: The LMA ProSeal® is considered a prototype among the second-generation supraglottic airway devices (SAD). The Ambu AuraGain™ is a relatively new, single use, second-generation SAD with a preformed shape. We conducted this study with the aim of comparing the difference in clinical performance between Ambu AuraGain™ and LMA ProSeal® in children receiving controlled ventilation.

Methods: Ninety-four children, aged between 6 months to 12 years, weighing 5 to 30 kg, belonging to American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I and II, undergoing elective surgical procedures, were randomized into two groups. The primary end-point was oropharyngeal seal pressure, and the secondary parameters were the number of attempts, time of insertion, ease of placement of the device and gastric tube, and fiberoptic visualization of the laryngeal aperture.

Results: The mean oropharyngeal seal pressure with Ambu AuraGain™ was significantly higher than LMA ProSeal® (23.3 ± 4.6 cmH2O vs 20.6 ± 4.8 cmH2O, P = 0.007, respectively). The ease and success rate for device placement, fiberoptic visualization of the larynx, and complications were comparable. However, the time for insertion in Ambu AuraGain™ group was shorter when compared to LMA ProSeal® group, median (IQR [range]); 12 (10-15) s vs 20 (18-23) s (P < 0.001), respectively. The gastric drain was significantly easier to insert in Ambu AuraGain™ compared to LMA® ProSeal (P = 0.01).

Conclusion: Our study suggests that Ambu AuraGain™ could be a useful disposable alternative to LMA ProSeal® for securing airway in children.

Keywords: Ambu AuraGain™; LMA® ProSeal; oropharyngeal seal pressure; pediatrics: airway management.

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(a) The preformed Ambu AuraGain™ size 2 and the LMA ProSeal® size 2. (b) Mask bowls of LMA ProSeal® (left) and that of Ambu AuraGain™ (right) which is slightly bigger in size
Figure 2
Figure 2
CONSORT diagram depicting patient enrolment data

References

    1. Cook TM, Lee G, Nolan JP. The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: A review of the literature. Can J Anaesth. 2005;52:739–60.
    1. Cook TM, Gibbison B. Analysis of 1000 consecutive uses of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway by one anaesthetist at a district general hospital. Br J Anaesth. 2007;99:436–9.
    1. Jagannathan N, Sohn LE, Sawardekar A, Gordon J, Langen KE, Anderson K. A randomized comparison of the LMA Supreme and LMA ProSeal® in children. Anaesthesia. 2012;67:632–9.
    1. Lopez-Gil M, Brimacombe J, Keller C. A comparison of four methods for assessing oropharyngeal leak pressure with the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) in pediatric patients. Paediatr Anaesth. 2001;11:319–21.
    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. Jagannathan N, Hajduk J, Sohn L, Huang A, Sawardekar A, Gebhardt ER, et al. A randomised comparison of the Ambu AuraGain™ and the LMA supreme in infants and children. Anaesthesia. 2016;71:205–12.
    1. Singh K, Gurha P. Comparative evaluation of Ambu AuraGain™ with ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Indian J Anaesth. 2017;61:469–74.
    1. Lopez AM, Sala-Blanch X, Valero R, Prats A. Cross-Over Assessment of the Ambu AuraGain™, LMA Supreme New Cuff and Intersurgical I-Gel in Fresh Cadavers. Open J Anesthesiol. 2014;4:332–9.
    1. Parikh DA, Jain RA, Lele SS, Tendolkar BA. A cohort evaluation of clinical use and performance characteristics of Ambu AuraGain. A prospective observational study. Indian J Anaesth. 2017;61:636–42.
    1. Wheeler M. ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in 120 pediatric surgical patients: A prospective evaluation of characteristics and performance. Paediatr Anaesth. 2006;16:297–301.
    1. Saran S, Mishra SK, Badhe AS, Vasudevan A, Elakkumanan LB, Mishra G. Comparison of i-gel supraglottic airway and LMA-ProSeal in paediatric patients under controlled ventilation. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2014;30:195–8.
    1. Gasteiger L, Brimacombe J, Oswald E, Perkhofer D, Tonin A, Keller C, et al. LMA ProSeal® vs. i-Gel in ventilated children: A randomised, crossover study using the size 2 mask. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2012;56:1321–4.
    1. Singh I, Gupta M, Tandon M. Comparison of Clinical Performance of I-Gel with LMA-ProSeal in Elective Surgeries. Indian J Anaesth. 2009;53:302–5.
    1. Lopez AM, Agusti M, Gambus P, Pons M, Anglada T, Valero R. A randomised comparison of the Ambu AuraGain™ versus the LMA supreme in patients undergoing gynaecologic laparoscopic surgery. J Clin Monit Comput. 2016;31:1–8.
    1. Harless J, Ramaiah R, Bhananker SM. Paediatric airway management. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci. 2014;4:65–70.
    1. Shariffuddin II, Teoh WH, Tang E, Hashim N, Loh PS. Ambu AuraGain™ versus LMA Supreme Second Seal: A randomised controlled trial comparing oropharyngeal leak pressures and gastric drain functionality in spontaneously breathing patients. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2017;45:244–50.
    1. Ramachandran SK, Kumar AM. Supraglottic airway devices discussion. Respir Care. 2014;59:920–32.
    1. Ueshima H, Yoshida A, Otake H. Use of the new supraglottic device “Ambu AuraGain™ “ in clinical settings. J Clin Anaesth. 2016;31:263–4.
    1. Eckelman M, Mosher M, Gonzalez A, Sherman J. Comparative life cycle assessment of disposable and reusable laryngeal mask airways. Anesth Analg. 2012;114:1067–72.
    1. Greenwood J, Green N, Power G. Protein contamination of the Laryngeal Mask Airway and its relationship to re-use. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2006;34:343–6.
    1. Jain RA, Parikh DA, Malde AD, Balasubramianium B. Current practice patterns of supraglottic airway usage in paediatric patients amongst anaesthesiologists: A nationwide survey. Indian J Anaesth. 2018;62:269–79.
    1. McGain F, Story D, Lim T, McAlister S. Financial and environmental costs of reusable and single use anaesthetic equipment. Br J Anaesth. 2017;118:862–9.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅