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...

Descripción completa

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