Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Anesthesiology
Published in: BMC Anesthesiology 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

A preliminary assessment of the LMA protector™ in non-paralysed patients

Authors: Ban Leong Sng, Farida Binte Ithnin, Deepak Mathur, Eileen Lew, Nian-Lin Reena Han, Alex Tiong-Heng Sia

Published in: BMC Anesthesiology | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The LMA Protector™ is the latest CE marked single use supraglottic airway device. This airway device provides access and functional separation of the respiratory and digestive tracts. There are two ports (male, female ports) to provide suction in the laryngeal region and insertion of the gastric tube. The aim of our study is to assess the ease of use, airway quality, device positioning, airway leak and complications associated with initial clinical experience in LMA Protector™ usage.

Methods

This is an initial investigation of LMA Protector™ airway device. We conducted a preliminary assessment in the anaesthetised women who underwent minor gynaecological procedures with spontaneous ventilation in order to evaluate the performance of the airway device.

Results

Insertion was successful on first and second attempts in 23 (88.5%) and 3 (11.5%) respectively. Median [IQR (range)] insertion time was 19 [17-21(14-58)] seconds. Airway leak pressure was 25.5 [23-29(21-30] cmH2O. On fibreoptic examination via the device, vocal cords were visible in all 26 patients. There were no alternative airway use or airway manipulations required during maintenance of anaesthesia. Six patients had sore throat 24 h after procedures and there was no dysphagia or hoarseness.

Conclusion

This pilot study of the LMA protector shows that the device is easily inserted with fast insertion time, providing a reliable and adequate airway seal.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov Registration NCT02531256. Retrospectively registered on August 21, 2015.
Literature
1.
Van Zundert AA, Skinner MW, Van Zundert TC, Luney SR, Pandit JJ. Value of knowing physical characteristics of the airway device before using it. Br J Anaesth. 2016;117(1):12–6.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Van Zundert AA, Kumar CM, Van Zundert TC. Malpositioning of supraglottic airway devices: preventive and corrective strategies. Br J Anaesth. 2016;116(5):579–82.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Verghese C, Berlet J, Kapila A, Pollard R. Clinical assessment of the single use laryngeal mask airway--the LMA-unique. Br J Anaesth. 1998;80:677–9.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Brimacombe J, Keller C, Judd DV. Gum elastic bougie-guided insertion of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway is superior to the digital and introducer tool techniques. Anesthesiology. 2004;100(1):25–9.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Maitra S, Khanna P, Baidya DK. Comparison of laryngeal mask airway Supreme and laryngeal mask airway Pro-Seal for controlled ventilation during general anaesthesia in adult patients: systematic review with meta-analysis. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2014;31:266–73.CrossRefPubMed
6.
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
7.
8.
Joly N, Poulin LP, Tanoubi I, Drolet P, Donati F, St-Pierre P. Randomized prospective trial comparing two supraglottic airway devices: i-gel and LMA-Supreme in paralyzed patients. Can J Anaesth. 2014;61:794–800.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Cook TM, Lee G, Nolan JP. The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: a review of the literature. Can J Anaesth. 2005;52:739–60.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Cook TM, Gatward JJ, Handel J, Hardy R, Thompson C, Srivastava R, Clarke PA. Evaluation of the LMA Supreme in 100 non-paralysed patients. Anaesthesia. 2009;64:555–62.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Cook TM, Nolan JP, Verghese C, Strube PJ, Lees M, Millar JM, Baskett PJ. Randomized crossover comparison of the proseal with the classic laryngeal mask airway in unparalysed anaesthetized patients. Br J Anaesth. 2002;88:527–33.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Gatward JJ, Cook TM, Seller C, Handel J, Simpson T, Vanek V, Kelly F. Evaluation of the size 4 i-gel airway in one hundred non-paralysed patients. Anaesthesia. 2008;63:1124–30.CrossRefPubMed
13.
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;93:104–9.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Brimacombe J, Keller C, Fullekrug B, Agrò F, Rosenblatt W, Dierdorf SF, Garcia de Lucas E, Capdevilla X, Brimacombe N. A multicenter study comparing the ProSeal and Classic laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized, nonparalyzed patients. Anesthesiology. 2002;96:289–95.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Braun U, Zerbst M, Füllekrug B, Gentzel I, Hempel V, Leier M, Peters T, Hobbensiefken G, Klein U, Heuser D, Weyland A, Rey D, Weirich C, Krier C. A comparison of the Proseal laryngeal mask to the standard laryngeal mask on anesthesized, non-relaxed patients. Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther. 2002;37:727–33.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Mihai R, Knottenbelt G, Cook TM. Evaluation of the revised laryngeal tube suction: the laryngeal tube suction II in 100 patients. Br J Anaesth. 2007;99:734–9.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Keller C, Brimacombe J, Kleinsasser A, Loeckinger A. Does the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway prevent aspiration of regurgitated fluid? Anesth Analg. 2000;91:1017–20.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Samsoon GL, Young JR. Difficult tracheal intubation: a retrospective study. Anaesthesia. 1987;42(5):487–90.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Pandit JJ, Popat MT, Cook TM, Wilkes AR, Groom P, Cooke H, Kapila A, O'Sullivan E. The Difficult Airway Society 'ADEPT' guidance on selecting airway devices: the basis of a strategy for equipment evaluation. Anaesthesia. 2011;66:726–37.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Pandit JJ. If it hasn't failed, does it work? On 'the worst we can expect' from observational trial results, with reference to airway management devices. Anaesthesia. 2012;67:578–83.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A preliminary assessment of the LMA protector™ in non-paralysed patients
Authors
Ban Leong Sng
Farida Binte Ithnin
Deepak Mathur
Eileen Lew
Nian-Lin Reena Han
Alex Tiong-Heng Sia
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2253
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-017-0323-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Anesthesiology 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research article

The value of arterial pressure waveform cardiac output measurements in the radial and femoral artery in major cardiac surgery patients

Research article

Determining the amount of training needed for competency of anesthesia trainees in ultrasonographic identification of the cricothyroid membrane

Correction

Correction to: Dexketoprofen/tramadol 25 mg/75 mg: randomised double-blind trial in moderate-to-severe acute pain after abdominal hysterectomy

Research article

Role of tube size and intranasal compression of the nasotracheal tube in respiratory pressure loss during nasotracheal intubation: a laboratory study

Research article

Supreme™ laryngeal mask airway use in general Anesthesia for category 2 and 3 Cesarean delivery: a prospective cohort study

Research article

Targeting urine output and 30-day mortality in goal-directed therapy: a systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression