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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Joshi, Reesha, Rudingwa, Priya, Kundra, Pankaj, Panneerselvam, Sakthirajan, Mishra, Sandeep K.
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