Cargando…
Comparisons of clinical performance of guardian laryngeal mask with laryngeal mask airway ProSeal
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4429672/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25929558 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-015-0039-3 |
_version_ | 1782371078114377728 |
---|---|
author | Pajiyar, Ajay Kumar Wen, Zhiting Wang, Haiyun Ma, Lin Miao, Lumin Wang, Guolin |
author_facet | Pajiyar, Ajay Kumar Wen, Zhiting Wang, Haiyun Ma, Lin Miao, Lumin Wang, Guolin |
author_sort | Pajiyar, Ajay Kumar |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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 cmH(2)O. 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 cmH(2)O, intracuff pressure measurement, gastric tube insertion attempt, gastric tube insertion time, Fiberoptic laryngeal view, and postoperative pharyngolaryngeal morbidity. RESULTS: The airway sealing pressure at 60cmH(2)O 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 cmH(2)O 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 ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12871-015-0039-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4429672 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-44296722015-05-14 Comparisons of clinical performance of guardian laryngeal mask with laryngeal mask airway ProSeal Pajiyar, Ajay Kumar Wen, Zhiting Wang, Haiyun Ma, Lin Miao, Lumin Wang, Guolin BMC Anesthesiol Research Article 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 cmH(2)O. 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 cmH(2)O, intracuff pressure measurement, gastric tube insertion attempt, gastric tube insertion time, Fiberoptic laryngeal view, and postoperative pharyngolaryngeal morbidity. RESULTS: The airway sealing pressure at 60cmH(2)O 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 cmH(2)O 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 ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12871-015-0039-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-05-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4429672/ /pubmed/25929558 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-015-0039-3 Text en © Pajiyar et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Pajiyar, Ajay Kumar Wen, Zhiting Wang, Haiyun Ma, Lin Miao, Lumin Wang, Guolin Comparisons of clinical performance of guardian laryngeal mask with laryngeal mask airway ProSeal |
title | Comparisons of clinical performance of guardian laryngeal mask with laryngeal mask airway ProSeal |
title_full | Comparisons of clinical performance of guardian laryngeal mask with laryngeal mask airway ProSeal |
title_fullStr | Comparisons of clinical performance of guardian laryngeal mask with laryngeal mask airway ProSeal |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparisons of clinical performance of guardian laryngeal mask with laryngeal mask airway ProSeal |
title_short | Comparisons of clinical performance of guardian laryngeal mask with laryngeal mask airway ProSeal |
title_sort | comparisons of clinical performance of guardian laryngeal mask with laryngeal mask airway proseal |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4429672/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25929558 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-015-0039-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pajiyarajaykumar comparisonsofclinicalperformanceofguardianlaryngealmaskwithlaryngealmaskairwayproseal AT wenzhiting comparisonsofclinicalperformanceofguardianlaryngealmaskwithlaryngealmaskairwayproseal AT wanghaiyun comparisonsofclinicalperformanceofguardianlaryngealmaskwithlaryngealmaskairwayproseal AT malin comparisonsofclinicalperformanceofguardianlaryngealmaskwithlaryngealmaskairwayproseal AT miaolumin comparisonsofclinicalperformanceofguardianlaryngealmaskwithlaryngealmaskairwayproseal AT wangguolin comparisonsofclinicalperformanceofguardianlaryngealmaskwithlaryngealmaskairwayproseal |