Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 6/2017

01-12-2017 | Original Research

A randomized comparison of the Ambu AuraGain versus the LMA supreme in patients undergoing gynaecologic laparoscopic surgery

Authors: Ana M. Lopez, Merce Agusti, Pedro Gambus, Montserrat Pons, Teresa Anglada, Ricard Valero

Published in: Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing | Issue 6/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Second generation supraglottic airway devices providing high seal airway pressures are suitable for patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopy. We compared the seal pressure achieved by the new Ambu AuraGain™ versus LMA Supreme™ following pneumoperitoneum in the Trendelenburg position. Sixty female patients were randomly allocated to ventilation with either the AuraGain or the Supreme. A target-controlled system was used to administer total intravenous anesthesia. Intracuff pressure was maintained below 60 cm H2O. The following parameters were registered: Time, number of attempts and manoeuvres required for insertion; seal pressure and peak inspiratory pressure at four time points; ease of gastric tube insertion, flexible scope view, complications and postoperative morbidity. Both devices were quick and easily inserted, although the Supreme required less rotation manoeuvres (16 in AuraGain vs. 6 in LMA Supreme; p = 0.01). The AuraGain achieved higher seal pressures (34 ± 5 in AuraGain vs. 29 ± 5 in LMA Supreme; p = 0.0002). Following pneumoperitoneum in head-down position, peak airway pressure increased 9 ± 3 cm H2O in both groups, exceeding seal pressure in 3 patients in the Supreme group (p = 0.06). The vocal cords were seen through all AuraGain and 90% of the Supreme devices; epiglottis was often visible inside the tube (68%). No differences were found in the incidence of traces of blood on the mask or postoperative symptoms. Both devices allowed effective ventilation in patients undergoing gynaecologic laparoscopic surgery with a low rate of complications. The Ambu AuraGain provided higher seal pressures and a clear view of glottic inlet in all patients offering the possibility to guide direct tracheal intubation if required.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Lee AKY, Tey JBL, Lim Y, Sia ATH. 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.PubMed Lee AKY, Tey JBL, Lim Y, Sia ATH. 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.PubMed
2.
go back to reference Teoh WHL, Lee KM, Suhitharan T, Yahaya Z, Teo MM, Sia ATH. Comparison of the LMA Supreme vs the i-gel in paralysed patients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopic surgery with controlled ventilation. Anaesthesia. 2010;65:1173–9.CrossRefPubMed Teoh WHL, Lee KM, Suhitharan T, Yahaya Z, Teo MM, Sia ATH. Comparison of the LMA Supreme vs the i-gel in paralysed patients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopic surgery with controlled ventilation. Anaesthesia. 2010;65:1173–9.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Abdi W, Amathieu R, Adhoum A, et al. Sparing the larynx during gynecological laparoscopy: a randomized trial comparing the LMA Supreme and the ETT. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2010;54:141–6.CrossRefPubMed Abdi W, Amathieu R, Adhoum A, et al. Sparing the larynx during gynecological laparoscopy: a randomized trial comparing the LMA Supreme and the ETT. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2010;54:141–6.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Jeon WJ, Cho SY, Baek SJ, Kim KH. Comparison of the Proseal LMA and intersurgical I-gel during gynecological laparoscopy. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2012;63:510–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Jeon WJ, Cho SY, Baek SJ, Kim KH. Comparison of the Proseal LMA and intersurgical I-gel during gynecological laparoscopy. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2012;63:510–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Wong DT, Yang JJ, Jagannathan N. Brief review: the LMA Supreme™ supraglottic airway. Can J Anaesth. 2012;59:483–93.CrossRefPubMed Wong DT, Yang JJ, Jagannathan N. Brief review: the LMA Supreme™ supraglottic airway. Can J Anaesth. 2012;59:483–93.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference López AM, Valero R, Lopez S, Zaballos M, Garcia ML. LMA Supreme TM: new design or a pig in a poke? Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim. 2013;60:597–8.CrossRefPubMed López AM, Valero R, Lopez S, Zaballos M, Garcia ML. LMA Supreme TM: new design or a pig in a poke? Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim. 2013;60:597–8.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference López AM, Valero R, Hurtado P, Gambús P, Pons M, Anglada T. Comparison of the LMA SupremeTM with the LMA ProsealTM for airway management in patients anaesthetized in prone position. Br J Anaesth. 2011;56:265–71.CrossRef López AM, Valero R, Hurtado P, Gambús P, Pons M, Anglada T. Comparison of the LMA SupremeTM with the LMA ProsealTM for airway management in patients anaesthetized in prone position. Br J Anaesth. 2011;56:265–71.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Timmermann A, Cremer S, Eich C, et al. Prospective clinical and fiberoptic evaluation of the Supreme laryngeal mask airway. Anesthesiology. 2009;110:262–5.PubMed Timmermann A, Cremer S, Eich C, et al. Prospective clinical and fiberoptic evaluation of the Supreme laryngeal mask airway. Anesthesiology. 2009;110:262–5.PubMed
10.
go back to reference Jagannathan N, Hajduk J, Sohn L, et al. A randomised comparison of the Ambu ® AuraGain TM and the LMA ® supreme in infants and children. Anaesthesia. 2015;71:205–12.CrossRefPubMed Jagannathan N, Hajduk J, Sohn L, et al. A randomised comparison of the Ambu ® AuraGain TM and the LMA ® supreme in infants and children. Anaesthesia. 2015;71:205–12.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Lopez A, Sala-Blanch X, Valero R, Prats A. Cross-over assessment of the AmbuAuraGain, LMA Supreme New Cuff and Intersurgical I-Gel in fresh cadavers. Open J Anesthesiol. 2014;4:332–9.CrossRef Lopez A, Sala-Blanch X, Valero R, Prats A. Cross-over assessment of the AmbuAuraGain, LMA Supreme New Cuff and Intersurgical I-Gel in fresh cadavers. Open J Anesthesiol. 2014;4:332–9.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Maltby JR, Beriault MT, Watson NC, Liepert DJ, Fick GH. LMA-Classic and LMA-ProSeal are effective alternatives to endotracheal intubation for gynecologic laparoscopy. Can J Anaesthesiol. 2003;50:71–7.CrossRef Maltby JR, Beriault MT, Watson NC, Liepert DJ, Fick GH. LMA-Classic and LMA-ProSeal are effective alternatives to endotracheal intubation for gynecologic laparoscopy. Can J Anaesthesiol. 2003;50:71–7.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Jeon WJ, Cho SY, Bang MR, Ko SY. Comparison of volume-controlled and pressure-controlled ventilation using a laryngeal mask airway during gynecological laparoscopy. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2011;60:167–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Jeon WJ, Cho SY, Bang MR, Ko SY. Comparison of volume-controlled and pressure-controlled ventilation using a laryngeal mask airway during gynecological laparoscopy. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2011;60:167–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
go back to reference Balick-Weber CC, Nicolas P, Hedreville-Montout M, Blanchet P, Stéphan F. Respiratory and haemodynamic effects of volume-controlled vs pressure-controlled ventilation during laparoscopy: a cross-over study with echocardiographic assessment. Br J Anaesth. 2007;99:429–35.CrossRefPubMed Balick-Weber CC, Nicolas P, Hedreville-Montout M, Blanchet P, Stéphan F. Respiratory and haemodynamic effects of volume-controlled vs pressure-controlled ventilation during laparoscopy: a cross-over study with echocardiographic assessment. Br J Anaesth. 2007;99:429–35.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Chiplonkar S, Sinha M, Ghanshani R. Pressure-controlled inverse ratio ventilation using laryngeal mask airway in gynecological laparoscopy. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2012;28:330.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Chiplonkar S, Sinha M, Ghanshani R. Pressure-controlled inverse ratio ventilation using laryngeal mask airway in gynecological laparoscopy. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2012;28:330.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Seet E, Yousaf F, Gupta S, Subramanyam R, Wong DT, Chung F. Use of manometry for laryngeal mask airway reduces postoperative pharyngolaryngeal adverse events: a prospective, randomized trial. Anesthesiology. 2010;112:652–7.CrossRefPubMed Seet E, Yousaf F, Gupta S, Subramanyam R, Wong DT, Chung F. Use of manometry for laryngeal mask airway reduces postoperative pharyngolaryngeal adverse events: a prospective, randomized trial. Anesthesiology. 2010;112:652–7.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Timmermann A, Bergner UA, Russo SG. Laryngeal mask airway indications. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2015;28:717–26.CrossRefPubMed Timmermann A, Bergner UA, Russo SG. Laryngeal mask airway indications. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2015;28:717–26.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Keller C, Brimacombe JR, Keller K, Morris R. Comparison of four methods for assessing airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in adult patients. Br J Anaesth. 1999;82:286–7.CrossRefPubMed Keller C, Brimacombe JR, Keller K, Morris R. Comparison of four methods for assessing airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in adult patients. Br J Anaesth. 1999;82:286–7.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A randomized comparison of the Ambu AuraGain versus the LMA supreme in patients undergoing gynaecologic laparoscopic surgery
Authors
Ana M. Lopez
Merce Agusti
Pedro Gambus
Montserrat Pons
Teresa Anglada
Ricard Valero
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing / Issue 6/2017
Print ISSN: 1387-1307
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2614
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-016-9963-0

Other articles of this Issue 6/2017

Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 6/2017 Go to the issue