Top

Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing

Published in:

01-04-2020 | Original Research

A prospective randomized comparison of airway seal using the novel vision-guided insertion of LMA-Supreme® and LMA-Protector®

Authors: André A. J. van Zundert, Kerstin H. Wyssusek, Anita Pelecanos, Michelle Roets, Chandra M. Kumar

Published in: Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing | Issue 2/2020

Abstract

The laryngeal mask airways supreme (LMA-Supreme™) and protector (LMA-Protector™) are generally placed blindly, often resulting in a less than optimal position and vision-guided placement has been recommended. This prospective, randomized controlled study compared the efficacy of airway seal by measuring the oropharyngeal leak pressure in 100 surgical patients who underwent a variety of non-thoracic surgery under general anaesthesia, suitable with a supraglottic airway device. Patients were allocated to either the LMA-Supreme (n = 50) or LMA-Protector (n = 50) group. All insertions were performed under vision of a videolaryngoscope using an ‘insert-detect-correct-as-you-go’ technique with standardized corrective measures. Our primary endpoint, mean oropharyngeal leak pressure, was significantly higher in the LMA-Protector (31.7 ± 2.9 cm H₂O) compared to the LMA-Supreme (27.7 ± 3.5 cm H₂O) group (mean difference 4.0 cm H₂O, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.7–5.3 cm H₂O, p < 0.001) after achieving a near-optimal fibreoptic position in the LMA-Protector (94%) and LMA-Supreme (96%) groups. No statistically significant differences were shown for secondary outcomes of alignment, number of insertion attempts and malpositions, and final anatomical position as scored by fibreoptic evaluation. Corrective manoeuvres were required in virtually all patients to obtain a correct anatomically positioned LMA. Position outcomes of the two devices were similar except for the proportion of procedures with folds in the proximal cuff (90% LMA-Supreme vs. 2% LMA-Protector, p < 0.001), the need for intracuff pressure adjustments (80% LMA-Supreme vs. 48% LMA-Protector, p = 0.001) and size correction (18% LMA-Supreme vs. 4% LMA-Protector, p = 0.025). In conclusion, a higher oropharyngeal leak pressure can be achieved with LMA-Protector compared to LMA-Supreme with optimal anatomical position when insertion is vision-guided.

Cook T, Woodall N, Frerk C. 4th National Audit Project of The Royal College of Anaesthetists and The Difficult Airway Society. Major complications of airway management in the United Kingdom. Report and findings. March 2011. ISBN 978-1-9000936-03-3. London: Royal College of Anaesthetists. https://www.rcoa.ac.uk/system/files/CSQ-NAP4-Full.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2018.

Shorten GD, Opie NJ, Graziotti P, Morris I, Khangure M. Assessment of upper airway anatomy in awake sedated and anaesthetized patients using magnetic resonance imaging. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1994;22:165–9.CrossRef

Brimacombe JR. Laryngeal mask anesthesia—principles and practice, 2nd ed. Philadelphia:Saunders; 2005, pp. 97–99.

Aoyama K, Takenaka I, Sata T, Shigematsu A. The triple airway manoeuvre for insertion of the laryngeal mask airway in paralyzed patients. Can J Anaesth. 1995;42:1010–6.CrossRef

Moustafa MA, Abdelhady MM. Fiberoptic assessment of the laryngeal mask airway (LarySeal) position after one hour of positive pressure ventilation: an observational study. J Clin Anesth. 2014;26:480–4.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Payne J. The use of the fibreoptic laryngoscope to confirm the position of the laryngeal mask. Anaesthesia. 1989;44:865.CrossRef

Van Zundert AAJ, Kumar CM, van Zundert TCRV. Malpositioning of supraglottic airway devices: preventive and corrective strategies. Br J Anaesth. 2016;116:579–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aew104.CrossRefPubMed

Van Zundert AAJ, Gatt SP, Kumar CM, van Zundert TCRV. Vision-guided placement of supraglottic airway device prevents airway obstruction: a prospective study. Br J Anaesth. 2017;118:462–3. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aex010.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Van Zundert AAJ, Gatt SP, Kumar CM, van Zundert TCRV, Pandit JJ. ‘Failed supraglottic airway’: an algorithm for suboptimally placed supraglottic airway devices based on videolaryngoscopy. Br J Anaesth. 2017;118:645–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aex093.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Van Zundert AAJ, Skinner MW, van Zundert TCRV, Luney SR, Pandit JJ. Value of knowing physical characteristics of the airway before using it. Br J Anaesth. 2016;117:12–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aew106.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Maitra S, Baidya DK, Bhattacharjee S, Khanna P. Laryngeal mask airway ProSeal provides higher oropharyngeal leak pressure than i-gel in adult patients under general anesthesia: a meta-analysis. J Clin Anesth. 2016;33:298–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2016.04.020.CrossRefPubMed

13.

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.CrossRef

14.

Seet E. Safety and efficacy of laryngeal mask airway Supreme versus laryngeal mask airway ProSeal: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010;27:602–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0b013e32833679e3.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Van Zundert AAJ, Wyssusek KH. Only with an optimal position of the supraglottic airway in situ, valid conclusions can be drawn about oropharyngeal airway pressure. Ind J Anaesth. 2018;62:241–2. https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.IJA_135_18.CrossRef

16.

Van Zundert TC, Hagberg CA, Cattano D. Standardization of extraglottic airway devices, is it time yet? Anesth Analg. 2013;117:750–2. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0b013e31829f368b.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Levitan RM, Ochroch EA, Kush S, Shofer FS, Hollander JE. Assessment of airway visualization: validation of the percentage of glottic opening (POGO) scale. Acad Emerg Med. 1998;5:919–3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.1998.tb02823.x.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Krage R, van Rijn C, van Groeningen D, Loer SA, Schwarte LA, Schober P. Cormack–Lehane classification revisited. Br J Anaesth. 2010;105:220–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aeq136.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Sng BL, Ithnin FB, Mathur D, Lew E, Han N-LR, Sia AT-H. A preliminary assessment of the LMA Protector™ in non-paralysed patients. BMC Anesthesiol. 2017;17:26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-017-0323-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Tan LZ, Tan DJ, Seet E. Use of the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) Protector for shoulder surgeries in beach-chair position: a case series. J Clin Anesth. 2017;39:110–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2017.03.036.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Tan LZ, Tan DJA, Seet E. Laryngeal mask airway protector™: Advanced uses for laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Indian J Anaesth. 2017;61:673–5. https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.IJA_240_17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Tan LZ, Tan DJA, Seet E. Laryngeal mask airway protector™ for intubation and extubation in thyroid surgeries: a case report. Indian J Anaesth. 2018;62:545–8. https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.IJA_43_18 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Kim MH, Lee JH, Choi YS, Park S, Shin S. Comparison of the laryngeal mask airway supreme and the i-gel in paralysed elderly patients. A randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2018;35:598–604. https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000000700.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Chaw SH, Shariffuddin II, Foo LL, Lee PK, Pran RM, Cheang PC, Chan L. Comparison of clinical performance of size 1.5 Supreme™ LMA and Proseal™ LMA among Asian children: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Mon Comput. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-018-0109-4.CrossRef

Title: A prospective randomized comparison of airway seal using the novel vision-guided insertion of LMA-Supreme® and LMA-Protector®
Authors: André A. J. van Zundert
Kerstin H. Wyssusek
Anita Pelecanos
Michelle Roets
Chandra M. Kumar
Publication date: 01-04-2020
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing / Issue 2/2020
Print ISSN: 1387-1307
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2614
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-019-00301-3

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

A prospective randomized comparison of airway seal using the novel vision-guided insertion of LMA-Supreme® and LMA-Protector®

Abstract

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2020

The response of a standardized fluid challenge during cardiac surgery on cerebral oxygen saturation measured with near-infrared spectroscopy

Correction to: Mathematical arterialisation of peripheral venous blood gas for obtainment of arterial blood gas values: a methodological validation study in the clinical setting

Validation of electrical velocimetry in resuscitation of patients undergoing liver transplantation. Observational study

Pulse pressure variation using a novel smartphone application (Capstesia) versus invasive pulse contour analysis in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a secondary analysis focusing on clinical decision making

Machine learning applied to multi-sensor information to reduce false alarm rate in the ICU

Simple calculation of the optimal insertion depth of esophageal temperature probes in children