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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pajiyar, Ajay Kumar, Wen, Zhiting, Wang, Haiyun, Ma, Lin, Miao, Lumin, Wang, Guolin
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