LMA® protector™ in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries: a multicenter prospective observational study

Background Laryngeal masks airway (LMA) has been increasingly used in surgical patients. However, the use of LMA in laparoscopic surgeries remains controversial. The major concerns include the potential risk of esophageal regurgitation, aspiration, and difficulties to achieve effective ventilation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the LMA® Protector™ in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Methods Patients aged 18 to 70 years, scheduled for laparoscopic surgeries were included. The insertion time, successful insertion rate, and oropharyngeal leak pressure were measured. Airway complications and airway manipulations during the procedure were documented. Effective ventilation rate was calculated. Visible bloodstains and reflux content in the drainage channel were documented after the removal of LMA® Protector™. Results Three hundred patients were enrolled. The insertion of LMA® Protector™ failed in seven patients resulting with a successful insertion rate of 97.7%. During the maintenance of anesthesia, airway manipulation was required in 19 patients (19/293, 6.48%), in three of whom the LMA was replaced with endotracheal intubation resulting with an effective ventilation rate of 96.7% (290/300). The oropharyngeal leak pressure was 30.18 ± 5.88 cmH2O. Seventy-five patients (25.86%) reported mild sore throat on the first day after surgery. Bloodstains on study devices were noticed in 58 patients (20%). Seventy-five patients (25.86%) reported mild sore throat on the first day after surgery. Gastric reflux was noticed in the drainage tube in 5 patients (1.72%) with no signs of aspiration in any of those patients. Conclusions The LMA® Protector™ was shown to be safe and effective in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries. Although minor complications that require no further treatment, no clinically diagnosed aspiration was noticed in our study. Gastric reflux was noticed in the drainage tube in five patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecology surgery. Further research is needed to verify whether LMA® Protector™ is suitable for procedures in Trendelenburg position or other situations that a high risk of gastroesophageal reflux exists. Trial registration The trial was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR1800018300, date of registration: September 2018).

Comparison of the efficacy of supraglottic airway devices in low-risk adult patients: a network meta-analysis and systematic review

Numerous supraglottic airway device (SADs) have been designed for adults; however, their relative efficacy, indicated by parameters such as adequacy of sealing, ease of application, and postinsertion complications, remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of various SADs. We searched electronic databases for randomized controlled trials comparing at least two types of SADs published before December 2019. The primary outcomes were oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP), risk of first-attempt insertion failure, and postoperative sore throat rate (POST). We included 108 studies (n = 10,645) comparing 17 types of SAD. The Proseal laryngeal mask airway (LMA), the I-gel supraglottic airway, the Supreme LMA, the Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway, the SoftSeal, the Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway, the Air-Q, the Laryngeal Tube, the Laryngeal Tube Suction II, the Laryngeal Tube Suction Disposable, AuraGain, and Protector had significantly higher OLP (mean difference ranging from 3.98 to 9.18 cmH2O) compared with that of a classic LMA (C-LMA). The Protector exhibited the highest OLP and was ranked first. All SADs had a similar likelihood of first-attempt insertion failure and POST compared with the C-LMA. Our findings indicate that the Protector may be the best SAD because it has the highest OLP.Systematic review registration PROSPERO: CRD42017065273.

LMA ® Protector™ In Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Surgeries: A Multicenter Prospective Observational Study

Backgroundː Laryngeal masks airway (LMA) has been increasingly used in surgical patients. However, the use of LMA in laparoscopic surgeries remains controversial. The major concerns include the potential risk of esophageal regurgitation, aspiration, and difficulties to achieve effective ventilation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the LMA® Protector™ in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Methodsː Patients aged 18 to 70 years, scheduled for laparoscopic surgeries were included. The insertion time, successful insertion rate, and oropharyngeal leak pressure were measured. Airway complications and airway manipulations during the procedure were documented. Effective ventilation rate was calculated. Visible bloodstains and reflux content in the drainage channel were documented after the removal of LMA® Protector™. Resultsː A total of 300 patients were enrolled. The insertion of LMA® Protector™ failed in seven patients resulting with a successful insertion rate of 97.7%. During the maintenance of anesthesia, airway manipulation was required in 19 patients (19/293, 6.48%), in three of whom the LMA was replaced with endotracheal intubation resulting with an effective ventilation rate of 96.7% (290/300). The oropharyngeal leak pressure was 30.18±5.88 cmH2O. 75 patients (25.86%) reported mild sore throat on the first day after surgery. No signs of aspiration were noticed in any of those patients. Conclusionsː The LMA® Protector™ was shown to be safe and effective in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries. Although minor complications that requiring no further treatment, no clinically diagnosed aspiration was noticed in our study. Trial registration: The trail was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR1800018300, data of registration, September 2018).

A Randomised Control Trial Comparing the Efficacy of LMA-Supreme and I-Gel as Rescue Ventilatory Device in Patients with Simulated Difficult Airway Undergoing Anaesthesia with Controlled Ventilation

Introduction: In an unanticipated difficult airway or in an emergency situation of cannot-intubate-cannot-ventilate scenario, Supraglottic Airway Devices (SGD) are recommended as rescue devices for establishing airway quickly to prevent hypoxia. Aim: To compare efficacy of i-gel airway and Laryngeal Mask Airway supreme (LMA supreme) as ventilatory devices and the time taken for their insertion in anaesthetised and paralysed patients with simulated difficult airway. Materials and Methods: One hundred and eighty adult patients with simulated difficult airway were randomly allocated to two groups of 90 patients each. In group I: i-gel and in group S: LMA supreme was inserted. Primary outcome studied was time taken for insertion of SGD. Secondary outcomes were the number of attempts taken for insertion of device, oropharyngeal leak pressure, ease of gastric catheter insertion, fibreoptic bronchoscopic view of anatomical alignment of device with glottic opening. Quantitative variables were compared using unpaired t-test/Mann-Whitney Test, between the two groups. Qualitative variable were compared using Chi-Square test/Fisher’s-exact test. Results: Total time taken for successful insertion was significantly shorter with group i-gel as compared to group LMA supreme {median (IQR) {19 (18.25-21)} versus {24 (23-24)} with p-value ≤0.0001. Overall success rate of insertion (96.67% vs 97.78%, p=1.000) and oropharyngeal leak pressure (p-value=0.555) of i-gel and LMA-S were comparable. i-gel has better anatomic alignment with glottic opening as compared to LMA-S (p-value ≤0.0001). Gastric tube insertion was easy in all patients in both the groups. Conclusion: Shorter time for the insertion of i-gel was observed due to absence of inflatable cuff, although both LMA-S and i-gel are equally efficacious as ventilatory devices in patients with simulated difficult airway under general anaesthesia with controlled ventilation.

Results of the randomized comparative study of second-generation supraglottic airways in orbital osteosynthesis

The objective: to assess and compare supraglottic airways of LMA-Supreme and i-gel during orbital osteosynthesis.Subjects and methods. 91 patients were included into the study. All of them underwent osteosynthesis of the orbit. The patients were randomly divided into two groups. LMA-Supreme group included 42 patients, while i-gel group included 49 patients.Results. The parameters of hemodynamics, gas exchange, and artificial pulmonary ventilation (APV) did not basically differ between the groups at different stages of the study. The oropharyngeal leak pressure differed between the groups at the end of surgery and made (Me – median, Q1 and Q3 – upper and lower quartiles): 28.0 (22.0; 30.0) and 21.0 (19.0; 27.0) mm WG the LMA-Supreme and i-gel groups, respectively; p = 0.021. A significant difference was observed in the insertion time of supraglottic airways (Me is the median, Q1 and Q3 are the upper and lower quartiles): 27.5 (19.3; 36.5) sec. for LMA-Supreme and 15.0 (13.8; 25.0) sec. – for i-gel; p = 0.001. When inserting the LMA-Supreme duct in 33 (78.6%) patients, jaw thrust maneuver, extension of the neck, etc. were required; while in the i-gel group, similar maneuvers were necessary in 18 (36.7%) patients; p < 0.001. The number of postoperative complications was minimal in both groups.Conclusion. Both supraglottic airways can be used with equal efficacy in osteosynthesis of the orbit. At the same time, the i-gel duct has an advantage over the LMA-Supreme in speed and simplicity of insertion. The LMA-Supreme had greater leak pressure at the end of surgery, which might be an advantage in patients requiring greater peak inspiratory pressure to provide effective APV.

A Randomized Crossover Comparison of Airway Sealing with the Laryngeal Mask Airway Ambu AuraFlex at Three Intracuff Pressures in Pediatric Laparoscopic Surgery

Objective An adequate intracuff pressure is important to ensure sufficient sealing function when using supraglottic airway devices to protect the airway from secretions and achieve adequate positive pressure ventilation. The aim of this study is to analyze a feasible and effective alternative Ambu AuraFlex intracuff pressure in child's laparoscopic surgery. Study Design Seventy-two children were included in this study. After insertion of the laryngeal mask airway AuraFlex, oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) was measured at intracuff pressures of 10, 30, and 60-cmH2O according to one of six sequences produced on the basis of 3 × 6 Williams crossover design. During the intraoperative period, AuraFlex was maintained using the last intracuff pressure of the allocated sequence. Oropharyngeal leak pressure, peak airway pressure, the fiberoptic view, mucosal change, and complications were assessed at three intracuff pressures. Results The OLP at the intracuff pressure of 10 cmH2O was significantly lower than that of 30 cmH2O (2# 18.1 ± 1.5 vs. 19.5 ± 1.4 cmH2O, p = 0.001; 2.5# 17.7 ± 1.2 vs. 20.2 ± 1.4, p = 0.001) and 60 cmH2O (2# 18.1 ± 1.5 vs. 20.0 ± 1.3 cmH2O, p = 0.002; 2.5# 17.7 ± 1.2 vs. 20.8 ± 1.1, p = 0.003). Compared with the peak airway pressure in pre-and postpneumoperitoneum, the OLP was significantly higher. Subgroup analysis showed no differences in mucosal change and complications. Conclusion Intracuff pressures of 30 may be sufficient for the Ambu AuraFlex in child's laparoscopic surgery, and there may be no added benefit of an intracuff pressure of 60 cmH2O, as oropharyngeal leak pressures were similar.