Cargando…
Comparision of Ambu AuraGain™ and LMA(®) ProSeal in children under controlled ventilation
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The LMA ProSeal® is considered a prototype among the second-generation supraglottic airway devices (SAD). The Ambu AuraGain™ is a relatively new, single use, second-generation SAD with a preformed shape. We conducted this study with the aim of comparing the difference in clinica...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6004764/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29962528 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ija.IJA_86_18 |
_version_ | 1783332578657304576 |
---|---|
author | Joshi, Reesha Rudingwa, Priya Kundra, Pankaj Panneerselvam, Sakthirajan Mishra, Sandeep K. |
author_facet | Joshi, Reesha Rudingwa, Priya Kundra, Pankaj Panneerselvam, Sakthirajan Mishra, Sandeep K. |
author_sort | Joshi, Reesha |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The LMA ProSeal® is considered a prototype among the second-generation supraglottic airway devices (SAD). The Ambu AuraGain™ is a relatively new, single use, second-generation SAD with a preformed shape. We conducted this study with the aim of comparing the difference in clinical performance between Ambu AuraGain™ and LMA ProSeal® in children receiving controlled ventilation. METHODS: Ninety-four children, aged between 6 months to 12 years, weighing 5 to 30 kg, belonging to American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I and II, undergoing elective surgical procedures, were randomized into two groups. The primary end-point was oropharyngeal seal pressure, and the secondary parameters were the number of attempts, time of insertion, ease of placement of the device and gastric tube, and fiberoptic visualization of the laryngeal aperture. RESULTS: The mean oropharyngeal seal pressure with Ambu AuraGain™ was significantly higher than LMA ProSeal® (23.3 ± 4.6 cmH(2)O vs 20.6 ± 4.8 cmH(2)O, P = 0.007, respectively). The ease and success rate for device placement, fiberoptic visualization of the larynx, and complications were comparable. However, the time for insertion in Ambu AuraGain™ group was shorter when compared to LMA ProSeal® group, median (IQR [range]); 12 (10–15) s vs 20 (18–23) s (P < 0.001), respectively. The gastric drain was significantly easier to insert in Ambu AuraGain™ compared to LMA® ProSeal (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that Ambu AuraGain™ could be a useful disposable alternative to LMA ProSeal® for securing airway in children. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6004764 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-60047642018-06-29 Comparision of Ambu AuraGain™ and LMA(®) ProSeal in children under controlled ventilation Joshi, Reesha Rudingwa, Priya Kundra, Pankaj Panneerselvam, Sakthirajan Mishra, Sandeep K. Indian J Anaesth Original Article BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The LMA ProSeal® is considered a prototype among the second-generation supraglottic airway devices (SAD). The Ambu AuraGain™ is a relatively new, single use, second-generation SAD with a preformed shape. We conducted this study with the aim of comparing the difference in clinical performance between Ambu AuraGain™ and LMA ProSeal® in children receiving controlled ventilation. METHODS: Ninety-four children, aged between 6 months to 12 years, weighing 5 to 30 kg, belonging to American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I and II, undergoing elective surgical procedures, were randomized into two groups. The primary end-point was oropharyngeal seal pressure, and the secondary parameters were the number of attempts, time of insertion, ease of placement of the device and gastric tube, and fiberoptic visualization of the laryngeal aperture. RESULTS: The mean oropharyngeal seal pressure with Ambu AuraGain™ was significantly higher than LMA ProSeal® (23.3 ± 4.6 cmH(2)O vs 20.6 ± 4.8 cmH(2)O, P = 0.007, respectively). The ease and success rate for device placement, fiberoptic visualization of the larynx, and complications were comparable. However, the time for insertion in Ambu AuraGain™ group was shorter when compared to LMA ProSeal® group, median (IQR [range]); 12 (10–15) s vs 20 (18–23) s (P < 0.001), respectively. The gastric drain was significantly easier to insert in Ambu AuraGain™ compared to LMA® ProSeal (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that Ambu AuraGain™ could be a useful disposable alternative to LMA ProSeal® for securing airway in children. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018-06 /pmc/articles/PMC6004764/ /pubmed/29962528 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ija.IJA_86_18 Text en Copyright: © 2018 Indian Journal of Anaesthesia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Joshi, Reesha Rudingwa, Priya Kundra, Pankaj Panneerselvam, Sakthirajan Mishra, Sandeep K. Comparision of Ambu AuraGain™ and LMA(®) ProSeal in children under controlled ventilation |
title | Comparision of Ambu AuraGain™ and LMA(®) ProSeal in children under controlled ventilation |
title_full | Comparision of Ambu AuraGain™ and LMA(®) ProSeal in children under controlled ventilation |
title_fullStr | Comparision of Ambu AuraGain™ and LMA(®) ProSeal in children under controlled ventilation |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparision of Ambu AuraGain™ and LMA(®) ProSeal in children under controlled ventilation |
title_short | Comparision of Ambu AuraGain™ and LMA(®) ProSeal in children under controlled ventilation |
title_sort | comparision of ambu auragain™ and lma(®) proseal in children under controlled ventilation |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6004764/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29962528 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ija.IJA_86_18 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT joshireesha comparisionofambuauragainandlmaprosealinchildrenundercontrolledventilation AT rudingwapriya comparisionofambuauragainandlmaprosealinchildrenundercontrolledventilation AT kundrapankaj comparisionofambuauragainandlmaprosealinchildrenundercontrolledventilation AT panneerselvamsakthirajan comparisionofambuauragainandlmaprosealinchildrenundercontrolledventilation AT mishrasandeepk comparisionofambuauragainandlmaprosealinchildrenundercontrolledventilation |