scholarly journals Randomised Comparison of the AMBU AuraOnce Laryngeal Mask and the LMA Unique Laryngeal Mask Airway in Spontaneously Breathing Adults

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daryl Lindsay Williams ◽  
James M. Zeng ◽  
Karl D. Alexander ◽  
David T. Andrews
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Difference ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Laryngeal Mask ◽  
Leak Pressure ◽  
Oropharyngeal Leak Pressure ◽  
Airway Devices ◽  
Spontaneously Breathing ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Single Blind

We conducted a randomised single-blind controlled trial comparing the LMA-Unique (LMAU) and the AMBU AuraOnce (AMBU) disposable laryngeal mask in spontaneously breathing adult patients undergoing general anaesthesia. Eighty-two adult patients (ASA status I–IV) were randomly allocated to receive the LMAU or AMBU and were blinded to device selection. Patients received a standardized anesthetic and all airway devices were inserted by trained anaesthetists. Size selection was guided by manufacturer recommendations. All data were collected by a single, unblinded observer. When compared with the LMAU, the AMBU produced significantly higher airway sealing pressures (AMBU20±6; LMAU15±7 cm H2O;P=0.001). There was no statistical difference between the two devices for overall success rate, insertion time, number of adjustments, laryngeal alignment, blood-staining, and sore throat (P≥0.05). The AMBU AuraOnce disposable laryngeal mask provided a higher oropharyngeal leak pressure compared to the LMA Unique in spontaneously breathing adult patients.

Comparison of Three Disposable Extraglottic Airway Devices in Spontaneously Breathing Adults

2006 ◽  
Vol 104 (6) ◽  
pp. 1165-1169 ◽  
Author(s):  
André van Zundert ◽  
Baha Al-Shaikh ◽  
Joseph Brimacombe ◽  
Jurgen Koster ◽  
Dick Koning ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Laryngeal Mask ◽  
Intracuff Pressure ◽  
Leak Pressure ◽  
Anatomical Position ◽  
Oropharyngeal Leak Pressure ◽  
Airway Trauma ◽  
Airway Devices ◽  
Effective Seal ◽  
Extraglottic Airway Devices ◽  
Spontaneously Breathing

Background The authors compared three disposable extraglottic airway devices in spontaneously breathing anesthetized adults: the LMA-Unique (LMA-U; The Laryngeal Mask Company, San Diego, CA), the Soft Seal laryngeal mask (SS-LM; Portex Ltd., Hythe, United Kingdom), and the Cobra perilaryngeal airway (Cobra-PLA; Engineered Medical Systems, Inc. Indianapolis, IN). Methods Three hundred twenty consecutive adults (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-III; aged 18-80 yr) were randomly allocated for airway management with one of the three devices. Anesthesia was with fentanyl-propofol for induction and a sevoflurane-nitrous oxide-oxygen-fentanyl mixture for maintenance. Intraoperative data were collected by an unblinded observer about ease of insertion, effective airway time, oropharyngeal leak pressure, anatomical position (determined with a rigid endoscope), intracuff pressure changes, and airway trauma. Data were collected by a blinded observer about sore throat, dysphagia, and dysphonia 2 h after surgery. Results Insertion was easier with the LMA-U and SS-LM than with the Cobra-PLA (P < 0.02), but the overall failure rates were similar. Effective airway times were similar among groups. Oropharyngeal leak pressure was lower with the LMA-U than with the SS-LM and Cobra-PLA (P < 0.001). Intracuff pressure increased during surgery with all extraglottic airway devices. Anatomical position was better with the Cobra-PLA than with the SS-LMA (P < 0.001) and better with the SS-LM than with LMA-U (P < 0.001). Blood staining was detected more frequently with the Cobra-PLA than with the LMA-U and SS-LM (P < 0.001), but there were no differences in airway morbidity. Conclusion The LMA-U and SS-LM are easier to insert and cause less trauma than the Cobra-PLA, but the Cobra-PLA has a more effective seal than the LMA-U and better endoscopically determined anatomical position than the LMA-U and SS-LM.

A Comparison of Sex- and Weight-based ProSeal™  Laryngeal Mask Size Selection Criteria

2004 ◽  
Vol 101 (2) ◽  
pp. 340-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shinichi Kihara ◽  
Joseph R. Brimacombe ◽  
Yuichi Yaguchi ◽  
Noriko Taguchi ◽  
Seiji Watanabe
Keyword(s):  
Gas Exchange ◽  
Laryngeal Mask Airway ◽  
Mucosal Injury ◽  
Proseal Laryngeal Mask Airway ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Laryngeal Mask ◽  
Leak Pressure ◽  
Digital Technique ◽  
Size Selection ◽  
Oropharyngeal Leak Pressure

Background The authors compared the manufacturer's weight-based formula (size 3 for weight < 50 kg, size 4 for weight 50-70 kg, and size 5 for weight > 70 kg) with a sex-based formula (size 4 for women and size 5 for men) for selecting the appropriate size of ProSeal laryngeal mask airway. Methods Two hundred thirty-seven healthy, anesthetized, paralyzed adult patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II; age, 18-80 yr) were randomly allocated for weight- or sex-based size selection. An experienced user inserted the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway with the digital technique. The following were compared: ease of insertion, oropharyngeal leak pressure, ease of ventilation, gas exchange, location of gas leak, anatomic position, mucosal injury, and postoperative pharyngolaryngeal problems. Intraoperative and postoperative data collection were unblinded and blinded, respectively. Results Ease of insertion, anatomic position, gas exchange, mucosal injury, and postoperative pharyngolaryngeal problems were similar between groups. For the sex-based group, larger ProSeal laryngeal mask airways were selected more frequently (P < 0.0001), oropharyngeal leak pressure (P = 0.02) was higher, leak volume (P = 0.004) and leak fraction (P = 0.007) were lower, and oropharyngeal leaks (P = 0.03) were detected less frequently. Conclusion Size selection for the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway is equally effective using the manufacturer's weight-based formula or the sex-based formula in healthy, anesthetized, paralyzed adult patients, but leakage of small volumes of air from the mouth occurs less frequently with the sex-based formula.

scholarly journals Performance of the Pediatric-sized i-gel Compared with the Ambu AuraOnce Laryngeal Mask in Anesthetized and Ventilated Children

2011 ◽  
Vol 115 (1) ◽  
pp. 102-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorenz G. Theiler ◽  
Maren Kleine-Brueggeney ◽  
Barbara Luepold ◽  
Franziska Stucki ◽  
Stefan Seiler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Day Surgery ◽  
Laryngeal Mask ◽  
Outcome Variable ◽  
Positive Pressure ◽  
Leak Pressure ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Airway Devices

Background This prospective, randomized, controlled trial compares the performance of the pediatric i-gel (Intersurgical Ltd., Wokingham, United Kingdom) with the Ambu AuraOnce laryngeal mask (Ambu A/S, Ballerup, Denmark) in anesthetized and ventilated children. Methods With ethics committee approval and written informed consent, the authors included 208 children, aged 0-17 yr, scheduled for elective day-surgery under general anesthesia. The primary outcome variable was oropharyngeal leak pressure. Other outcome variables were first-attempt and overall success, time to sufficient ventilation, and adverse events. Results Demographic data did not differ between groups. The leak pressure of the i-gel was significantly higher than the leak pressure of the Ambu (mean ± SD: 22 ± 5 cm H₂O vs. 19 ± 3, P < 0.01). First-attempt success was 91% for the i-gel and 93% for the Ambu (P = 0.50). Overall success was 93% for the i-gel versus 98% for the Ambu (P = 0.10). Successfully inserted i-gels needed to be secured by taping in place to ensure the seal in 44% (0% with the Ambu, P < 0.01). Insertion was faster with the Ambu (24 ± 8 s vs. 27 ± 11, P = 0.02). There were no major side effects with either device. Conclusions The leak pressure of the i-gel was statistically but not clinically significantly higher than the leak pressure of the Ambu. Time to insertion was longer with the i-gel. Both airway devices are suitable for positive pressure ventilation with high success rates in infants and children. Because the i-gel is prone to sliding out, it must be taped in place to avoid loss of the airway.

scholarly journals A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Ambu AuraGain and i-gel in Young Pediatric Patients

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. 1235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ha-Jung Kim ◽  
Hee-Sun Park ◽  
Soo-Young Kim ◽  
Young-Jin Ro ◽  
Hong-Seuk Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Pediatric Patients ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Supraglottic Airway ◽  
Leak Pressure ◽  
Oropharyngeal Leak Pressure ◽  
Supraglottic Airway Devices ◽  
Effective Ventilation ◽  
Airway Devices

Supraglottic airway devices have been increasingly used because of their several advantages. Previous studies showed that the small-sized i-gel provides effective ventilation for young pediatric patients; however, few studies have reported the use of AuraGain in these patients. Herein, we compared the clinical performance of AuraGain and i-gel in young pediatric patients aged between 6 months and 6 years old and weighing 5–20 kg, who were scheduled to undergo extremity surgery under general anesthesia. In total, 68 patients were enrolled and randomly allocated into two groups: AuraGain group and i-gel group. The primary outcome was the requirement of additional airway maneuvers. We also analyzed insertion parameters, fiberoptic bronchoscopic view, oropharyngeal leak pressure, and peri-operative adverse effects. Compared with the AuraGain group, the i-gel group required more additional airway maneuvers during the placement of the device and maintenance of ventilation. The fiberoptic view was better in the AuraGain group than in the i-gel group. However, the oropharyngeal leak pressure was higher in the i-gel group. AuraGain might be a better choice over i-gel considering the requirement of additional airway maneuvers. However, when a higher oropharyngeal leak pressure is required, the i-gel is more beneficial than AuraGain.

A Randomized Single Blind Controlled Trial of Combination Therapy (Spironolactone and Sitagliptin) in Hospitalized Adult Patients with Covid-19

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kamyar Asadipooya ◽  
Farhad Abbasi ◽  
Reuben Adatorwovor ◽  
Mohammad Ali Davarpanah ◽  
Yasaman Mansoori ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Single Blind
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document