Cargando…
A preliminary assessment of the LMA protector™ in non-paralysed patients
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5319052/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28219323 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-017-0323-5 |
_version_ | 1782509306486194176 |
---|---|
author | Sng, Ban Leong Ithnin, Farida Binte Mathur, Deepak Lew, Eileen Han, Nian-Lin Reena Sia, Alex Tiong-Heng |
author_facet | Sng, Ban Leong Ithnin, Farida Binte Mathur, Deepak Lew, Eileen Han, Nian-Lin Reena Sia, Alex Tiong-Heng |
author_sort | Sng, Ban Leong |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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] cmH(2)O. 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5319052 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-53190522017-02-24 A preliminary assessment of the LMA protector™ in non-paralysed patients Sng, Ban Leong Ithnin, Farida Binte Mathur, Deepak Lew, Eileen Han, Nian-Lin Reena Sia, Alex Tiong-Heng BMC Anesthesiol Research Article 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] cmH(2)O. 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. BioMed Central 2017-02-20 /pmc/articles/PMC5319052/ /pubmed/28219323 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-017-0323-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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 Sng, Ban Leong Ithnin, Farida Binte Mathur, Deepak Lew, Eileen Han, Nian-Lin Reena Sia, Alex Tiong-Heng A preliminary assessment of the LMA protector™ in non-paralysed patients |
title | A preliminary assessment of the LMA protector™ in non-paralysed patients |
title_full | A preliminary assessment of the LMA protector™ in non-paralysed patients |
title_fullStr | A preliminary assessment of the LMA protector™ in non-paralysed patients |
title_full_unstemmed | A preliminary assessment of the LMA protector™ in non-paralysed patients |
title_short | A preliminary assessment of the LMA protector™ in non-paralysed patients |
title_sort | preliminary assessment of the lma protector™ in non-paralysed patients |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5319052/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28219323 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-017-0323-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sngbanleong apreliminaryassessmentofthelmaprotectorinnonparalysedpatients AT ithninfaridabinte apreliminaryassessmentofthelmaprotectorinnonparalysedpatients AT mathurdeepak apreliminaryassessmentofthelmaprotectorinnonparalysedpatients AT leweileen apreliminaryassessmentofthelmaprotectorinnonparalysedpatients AT hannianlinreena apreliminaryassessmentofthelmaprotectorinnonparalysedpatients AT siaalextiongheng apreliminaryassessmentofthelmaprotectorinnonparalysedpatients AT sngbanleong preliminaryassessmentofthelmaprotectorinnonparalysedpatients AT ithninfaridabinte preliminaryassessmentofthelmaprotectorinnonparalysedpatients AT mathurdeepak preliminaryassessmentofthelmaprotectorinnonparalysedpatients AT leweileen preliminaryassessmentofthelmaprotectorinnonparalysedpatients AT hannianlinreena preliminaryassessmentofthelmaprotectorinnonparalysedpatients AT siaalextiongheng preliminaryassessmentofthelmaprotectorinnonparalysedpatients |