Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Anesthesiology 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

Comparisons of clinical performance of guardian laryngeal mask with laryngeal mask airway ProSeal

Authors: Ajay Kumar Pajiyar, Zhiting Wen, Haiyun Wang, Lin Ma, Lumin Miao, Guolin Wang

Published in: BMC Anesthesiology | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The Guardian Laryngeal Mask Airway (G-LMA) is a new silicone-based single-use extraglottic device with the drainage port and a cuff pilot valve with pressure indicator. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical performance of this laryngeal mask airway with ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (P-LMA).

Methods

In this prospective randomized study, we included adult patients with ASA grading I and II scheduled for elective surgery requiring supine position under total intravenous anesthesia. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups, 40 in each. G-LMA and P-LMA were used in groups G and P respectively. The cuff of each device was air inflated to 60 cmH2O. The primary outcome was to compare the airway sealing pressure and the secondary outcome was to compare the efficacy and safety of these two devices with respect to insertion success, insertion time, ease of insertion, volume of air for cuff inflation to 60 cmH2O, intracuff pressure measurement, gastric tube insertion attempt, gastric tube insertion time, Fiberoptic laryngeal view, and postoperative pharyngolaryngeal morbidity.

Results

The airway sealing pressure at 60cmH2O cuff pressure was significantly greater in G-LMA than P-LMA (p = 0.04).The first successful attempt of both groups were comparable (p = 1.000). Insertion time was significantly shorter in G-LMA than P-LMA (p < 0.0001). The first successful attempt for the gastric tube insertion in both groups was comparable (p = 0.431). Gastric tube insertion time was less in G-LMA than in P-LMA (p < 0.0001). The volume of air for cuff inflation to 60 cmH2O was more in G-LMA than in P-LMA (<0.0001). The intracuff pressure measurement at 30, 60, 90 and 120 minutes were comparable (p = 0.823, 0.182, 0.870, 0.658).We did not find differences in ease of insertion (p = 0.60); Fiber-optic positions of airway devices were comparable (p = 0.83). In addition, blood staining (p = 1.00), sore throat and dysphagia at 1, 2 and 24 hour (p = 1.00) were comparable in both groups.

Conclusion

The Guardian laryngeal mask airway was associated with high airway sealing pressure with a quicker insertion of the device as well as gastric tube.

Trial registration

Clinical Trial.gov Identifier: NCT02063516. Date: June 2013
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Tiefenthaler W, Eschertzhuber S, Brimacombe J, Fricke E, Keller C, Kaufmann M. A randomised, non-crossover study of the GuardianCPV laryngeal Mask versus the LMA Supreme in paralysed, anaesthetised female patients. Anaesthesia. 2013;68(6):600–4.CrossRefPubMed Tiefenthaler W, Eschertzhuber S, Brimacombe J, Fricke E, Keller C, Kaufmann M. A randomised, non-crossover study of the GuardianCPV laryngeal Mask versus the LMA Supreme in paralysed, anaesthetised female patients. Anaesthesia. 2013;68(6):600–4.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Brimacombe J, Keller C. The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: a randomized, crossover study with the standard laryngeal mask airway in paralyzed, anesthetized patients. Anesthesiology. 2000;93(1):104–9.CrossRefPubMed Brimacombe J, Keller C. The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: a randomized, crossover study with the standard laryngeal mask airway in paralyzed, anesthetized patients. Anesthesiology. 2000;93(1):104–9.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Cook TM, Nolan JP, Verghese C, Strube PJ, Lees M, Millar JM, et al. Randomized crossover comparison of the proseal with the classic laryngeal mask airway in unparalysed anaesthetized patients. Br J Anaesth. 2002;88(4):527–33.CrossRefPubMed Cook TM, Nolan JP, Verghese C, Strube PJ, Lees M, Millar JM, et al. Randomized crossover comparison of the proseal with the classic laryngeal mask airway in unparalysed anaesthetized patients. Br J Anaesth. 2002;88(4):527–33.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Galgon RE, Schroeder KM, Han S, Andrei A, Joffe AM. The air-Q((R)) intubating laryngeal airway vs the LMA-ProSeal(TM): a prospective, randomised trial of airway seal pressure. Anaesthesia. 2011;66(12):1093–100.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Galgon RE, Schroeder KM, Han S, Andrei A, Joffe AM. The air-Q((R)) intubating laryngeal airway vs the LMA-ProSeal(TM): a prospective, randomised trial of airway seal pressure. Anaesthesia. 2011;66(12):1093–100.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Williams DL, Zeng JM, Alexander KD, Andrews DT. Randomised Comparison of the AMBU AuraOnce Laryngeal Mask and the LMA Unique Laryngeal Mask Airway in Spontaneously Breathing Adults. Anesthesiol Res Pract. 2012;2012:405812.PubMedPubMedCentral Williams DL, Zeng JM, Alexander KD, Andrews DT. Randomised Comparison of the AMBU AuraOnce Laryngeal Mask and the LMA Unique Laryngeal Mask Airway in Spontaneously Breathing Adults. Anesthesiol Res Pract. 2012;2012:405812.PubMedPubMedCentral
6.
go back to reference Russo SG, Cremer S, Eich C, Jipp M, Cohnen J, Strack M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging study of the in vivo position of the extraglottic airway devices i-gel and LMA-Supreme in anaesthetized human volunteers. Br J Anaesth. 2012;109(6):996–1004.CrossRefPubMed Russo SG, Cremer S, Eich C, Jipp M, Cohnen J, Strack M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging study of the in vivo position of the extraglottic airway devices i-gel and LMA-Supreme in anaesthetized human volunteers. Br J Anaesth. 2012;109(6):996–1004.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Chauhan G, Nayar P, Seth A, Gupta K, Panwar M, Agrawal N. Comparison of clinical performance of the I-gel with LMA proseal. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2013;29(1):56–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Chauhan G, Nayar P, Seth A, Gupta K, Panwar M, Agrawal N. Comparison of clinical performance of the I-gel with LMA proseal. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2013;29(1):56–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
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(2):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(2):286–7.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Brimacomb J, Keller C, Kurian S, Myles J. Reliability of epigastric auscultation to detect gastric insufflation. Br J Anaesth. 2002;88(1):127–9.CrossRefPubMed Brimacomb J, Keller C, Kurian S, Myles J. Reliability of epigastric auscultation to detect gastric insufflation. Br J Anaesth. 2002;88(1):127–9.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Brimacombe J, Holyoake L, Keller C, Brimacombe N, Scully M, Barry J, et al. Pharyngolaryngeal, neck, and jaw discomfort after anesthesia with the face mask and laryngeal mask airway at high and low cuff volumes in males and females. Anesthesiology. 2000;93(1):26–31.CrossRefPubMed Brimacombe J, Holyoake L, Keller C, Brimacombe N, Scully M, Barry J, et al. Pharyngolaryngeal, neck, and jaw discomfort after anesthesia with the face mask and laryngeal mask airway at high and low cuff volumes in males and females. Anesthesiology. 2000;93(1):26–31.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Verghese C, Ramaswamy B. LMA-SupremeTM—a new single-use LMATM with gastric access: a report on its clinical efficacy. Br J Anaesth. 2008;101(3):405–10.CrossRefPubMed Verghese C, Ramaswamy B. LMA-SupremeTM—a new single-use LMATM with gastric access: a report on its clinical efficacy. Br J Anaesth. 2008;101(3):405–10.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Hosten T, Gurkan Y, Ozdamar D, Tekin M, Toker K, Solak M. A new supraglottic airway device: LMA-supreme, comparison with LMA-Proseal. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2009;53(7):852–7.CrossRefPubMed Hosten T, Gurkan Y, Ozdamar D, Tekin M, Toker K, Solak M. A new supraglottic airway device: LMA-supreme, comparison with LMA-Proseal. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2009;53(7):852–7.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Seet E, Rajeev S, Firoz T, Yousaf F, Wong J, Wong DT, et al. Safety and efficacy of laryngeal mask airway Supreme versus laryngeal mask airway ProSeal: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010;27(7):602–7.CrossRefPubMed Seet E, Rajeev S, Firoz T, Yousaf F, Wong J, Wong DT, et al. Safety and efficacy of laryngeal mask airway Supreme versus laryngeal mask airway ProSeal: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010;27(7):602–7.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Eschertzhuber S, Brimacombe J, Hohlrieder M, Keller C. The laryngeal mask airway Supreme--a single use laryngeal mask airway with an oesophageal vent. A randomised, cross-over study with the laryngeal mask airway ProSeal in paralysed, anaesthetised patients. Anaesthesia. 2009;64(1):79–83.CrossRefPubMed Eschertzhuber S, Brimacombe J, Hohlrieder M, Keller C. The laryngeal mask airway Supreme--a single use laryngeal mask airway with an oesophageal vent. A randomised, cross-over study with the laryngeal mask airway ProSeal in paralysed, anaesthetised patients. Anaesthesia. 2009;64(1):79–83.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Hosten T, Yildiz TS, Kus A, Solak M, Toker K. Comparison of Supreme Laryngeal Mask Airway and ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway during Cholecystectomy. Balkan Med J. 2012;29(3):314–9.PubMedPubMedCentral Hosten T, Yildiz TS, Kus A, Solak M, Toker K. Comparison of Supreme Laryngeal Mask Airway and ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway during Cholecystectomy. Balkan Med J. 2012;29(3):314–9.PubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Brain AI, Verghese C, Strube PJ. The LMA ‘ProSeal’–a laryngeal mask with an oesophageal vent. Br J Anaesth. 2000;84(5):650–4.CrossRefPubMed Brain AI, Verghese C, Strube PJ. The LMA ‘ProSeal’–a laryngeal mask with an oesophageal vent. Br J Anaesth. 2000;84(5):650–4.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Brimacombe J, Keller C, Puhringer F. Pharyngeal mucosal pressure and perfusion: a fiberoptic evaluation of the posterior pharynx in anesthetized adult patients with a modified cuffed oropharyngeal airway. Anesthesiology. 1999;91(6):1661–5.CrossRefPubMed Brimacombe J, Keller C, Puhringer F. Pharyngeal mucosal pressure and perfusion: a fiberoptic evaluation of the posterior pharynx in anesthetized adult patients with a modified cuffed oropharyngeal airway. Anesthesiology. 1999;91(6):1661–5.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Wong JG, Heaney M, Chambers NA, Erb TO, von Ungern-Sternberg BS. Impact of laryngeal mask airway cuff pressures on the incidence of sore throat in children. Paediatr Anaesth. 2009;19(5):464–9.CrossRefPubMed Wong JG, Heaney M, Chambers NA, Erb TO, von Ungern-Sternberg BS. Impact of laryngeal mask airway cuff pressures on the incidence of sore throat in children. Paediatr Anaesth. 2009;19(5):464–9.CrossRefPubMed
19.
20.
go back to reference Nott MR, Noble PD, Parmar M. Reducing the incidence of sore throat with the laryngeal mask airway. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 1998;15(2):153–7.CrossRefPubMed Nott MR, Noble PD, Parmar M. Reducing the incidence of sore throat with the laryngeal mask airway. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 1998;15(2):153–7.CrossRefPubMed
21.
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(3):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(3):652–7.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Comparisons of clinical performance of guardian laryngeal mask with laryngeal mask airway ProSeal
Authors
Ajay Kumar Pajiyar
Zhiting Wen
Haiyun Wang
Lin Ma
Lumin Miao
Guolin Wang
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2253
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-015-0039-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Anesthesiology 1/2015 Go to the issue