Dataset Information

Validation of the unassisted, gum-elastic bougie-guided, laryngeal mask airway-ProSeal™ placement technique in anaesthetized patients.

ABSTRACT: AIMS:The laryngeal mask airway-ProSeal™ can be inserted digitally, by introducer tool, or by railroading it over a bougie placed first in the patient's oesophagus, which is highly successful, but as originally described, requires an assistant. An unassisted bougie-guided placement technique has also been described, but no data on its effectiveness have been reported. METHODS:We reviewed data collected during a randomized, controlled trial comparing the air-Q(®) Intubating Laryngeal Airway and LMA-Proseal™, in which all LMA-Proseal™ devices were inserted using the unassisted (one-operator), bougie-guided placement technique. RESULTS:Forty-eight devices were placed. All devices were placed successfully. Successful placement was achieved in 47 (98%) patients on first attempt and in one (2%) patient on the third attempt. Mean (SD) time required for insertion establishing ventilation was 28 (11) s. Mean (SD) airway seal pressure was 30 (6) cmH(2)O. Gross blood was found on four (8%) devices upon removal, but no oropharyngeal injuries were noted on oral exam in the recovery unit prior to discharge. The most common complaints in recovery and 24 h post-operatively were sore throat [discharge: mild = 18/48 (38%); 24 h: mild = 9/38 (19%), moderate = 1/38 (3%)] and pain on swallowing [discharge: mild = 7/48 (15%); 24 h: mild = 2/38 (6%)]. CONCLUSIONS:Our data confirm that in experienced hands, bougie-guided placement of the LMA-Proseal™ without the aid of an assistant can be accomplished quickly and successfully without affecting the expected clinical performance of the device.

SUBMITTER: Joffe AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3425285 | biostudies-literature | 2012 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Validation of the unassisted, gum-elastic bougie-guided, laryngeal mask airway-ProSeal™ placement technique in anaesthetized patients.

Joffe Aaron M AM Schroeder Kristopher M KM Shepler John A JA Galgon Richard E RE

Indian journal of anaesthesia 20120501 3

<h4>Aims</h4>The laryngeal mask airway-ProSeal™ can be inserted digitally, by introducer tool, or by railroading it over a bougie placed first in the patient's oesophagus, which is highly successful, but as originally described, requires an assistant. An unassisted bougie-guided placement technique has also been described, but no data on its effectiveness have been reported.<h4>Methods</h4>We reviewed data collected during a randomized, controlled trial comparing the air-Q(®) Intubating Laryngea ...[more]

PMID: 22923824

Similar Datasets

Project description: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).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.The airway sealing pressure at 60 cmH2O 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.The Guardian laryngeal mask airway was associated with high airway sealing pressure with a quicker insertion of the device as well as gastric tube.Clinical Trial.gov Identifier: NCT02063516. Date: June 2013.

Project description:BackgroundProSeal (PLMA) and Supreme (SLMA) laryngeal mask airways are effective ventilator devices with distinctive designs that may require different anaesthetics for insertion. Sevoflurane induction provides acceptable conditions for laryngeal mask insertion, and remifentanil significantly decreases the minimum alveolar concentration of sevoflurane required for that insertion. The study aimed to evaluate the optimal end-tidal (ET) sevoflurane concentration for successful insertion of PLMA versus SLMA in patients receiving a remifentanil infusion without a neuromuscular blocking agent.MethodsAltogether, 45 patients ASA (American Society Anaesthesiologists) physical status I-II, aged 18-60 years were scheduled for elective ambulatory surgery. Exclusion criteria were a difficult airway, recent respiratory infection, reactive airway, obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome, gastric aspiration's risk factors, pregnancy, and lactation. Patients were randomly allocated to receive the SLMA or the PLMA. Sevoflurane induction with co-administration of remifentanil was performed at an effect-site concentration of 4 ng mL- 1. ET50 was calculated with a modified Dixon's up-and-down method (starting at 2.5% in steps of 0.5%). Predetermined sevoflurane concentration was kept constant during the 10 min before LMA insertion. Patient's response to LMA insertion was classified as "movement" or "no movement". Sevoflurane ET50 was determined as the midpoint concentration of all the independent pairs that manifested crossover from "movement" to "no movement".ResultsThe ET50 sevoflurane concentration co-administered with remifentanil required for PLMA insertion was 1.20 ± 0.41% (95% confidence interval 0.76 to 1.63%). For SLMA insertion, it was 0.55 ± 0.38% (95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.95%) (p = 0.019).ConclusionsThe end-tidal sevoflurane concentration with co-administered remifentanil required to allow insertion of the SLMA was 54% lower than that needed for inserting the PLMA.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03003377. Retrospectively registered. Date of registration: December 28, 2016.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The intubating laryngeal mask Fastrach™ is considered a gold standard for blind intubation as well as for fibreoptic guided intubation via a laryngeal mask. Recently, a single use version of the mask has been introduced. We compared the Fastrach single use with the new, low-priced single use intubating laryngeal mask Ambu Aura-i™. We hypothesised that the LMA Ambu Aura-i and the LMA Fastrach are comparable with respect to success rates for mask placement and blind tracheal intubation through the LMA device. METHODS:A prospective, randomised clinical trial. University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, from April 2011 to April 2012. Eighty patients undergoing general anaesthesia with planned tracheal intubation were randomised and enrolled in the study. Blind intubation was performed with either laryngeal mask using two different tracheal tubes (Rüsch Super Safety Silk™ and LMA ETT™). A crossover-design was performed after an unsuccessful procedure. Primary outcome measure was the overall success rate of blind intubation. Secondary outcome measures were the time to the first adequate ventilation, a subjective handling score, and a fibreoptic control of placement, as well as the success rate of mask placement, time for mask removal after successful intubation, differences in airway leak pressure, and the incidence of postoperative sore throat and hoarseness. RESULTS:The success rate of tracheal intubation with the Fastrach for the first and second attempt was significantly better compared with the Ambu Aura-i. Tracheal intubation was also significantly faster (14.1 s. ±4.4 versus 21.3 s. ±9.0; p < 0.01), and the time interval for mask removal after successful intubation was significantly shorter using the Fastrach device (24.0 s. ±8.2 versus 29.4 s. ±7.5; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between groups regarding the incidence of postoperative sore throat and hoarseness. CONCLUSION:Both laryngeal mask devices are suitable for ventilation and oxygenation. Blind intubation remains the domain of the LMA Fastrach, the Ambu Aura-i is not suitable for blind intubation. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov Identification Number NCT03109678 , retrospectively registered on April 12, 2017.

Dataset Information

Validation of the unassisted, gum-elastic bougie-guided, laryngeal mask airway-ProSeal™ placement technique in anaesthetized patients.

Publications

Validation of the unassisted, gum-elastic bougie-guided, laryngeal mask airway-ProSeal™ placement technique in anaesthetized patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets