Cargando…
A randomized comparative study of three supraglottic airway devices for controlled ventilation in anesthetized patients
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The LMA® ProSeal™, LMA® Supreme™ and Ambu® AuraGain™ are second-generation supraglottic airway devices (SADs) with integrated gastric access. In this study, we compared the clinical performance of these three devices in adults for controlled ventilation in anesthetized paralysed...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9511860/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36171925 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/joacp.JOACP_465_20 |
_version_ | 1784797730171781120 |
---|---|
author | Sharma, Manoj Sharma, Bimla Gupta, Manish Panday, Bhuwan Chand Sahai, Chand Sood, Jayashree |
author_facet | Sharma, Manoj Sharma, Bimla Gupta, Manish Panday, Bhuwan Chand Sahai, Chand Sood, Jayashree |
author_sort | Sharma, Manoj |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The LMA® ProSeal™, LMA® Supreme™ and Ambu® AuraGain™ are second-generation supraglottic airway devices (SADs) with integrated gastric access. In this study, we compared the clinical performance of these three devices in adults for controlled ventilation in anesthetized paralysed patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two hundred and seventy adults, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status I-III, undergoing elective surgical procedures, were randomized into three groups with 90 patients in each: Group 1: LMA® ProSeal™, Group 2: LMA® Supreme™ and Group 3: Ambu® AuraGain™. All the three devices were evaluated for oropharyngeal seal pressure (OSP) and other parameters: ease and the number of attempts at device placement, fibreoptic laryngeal view and intraoperative and postoperative complications. RESULTS: In the present study, the mean OSP was 38.9 ± 3.050 cm H(2)O in the LMA ProSeal™ group, 37.41 ± 4.097 cm H(2)O in LMA® Supreme™ group and 37.32 ± 3.740 cm H(2)O in Ambu® AuraGain™ group. The difference was found to be statistically significant (P = 0.006). The three groups were comparable for the ease of device insertion, number of attempts at device placement, fibreoptic laryngeal view, intraoperative and postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: In this study, we found that the LMA® ProSeal™ provided the highest OSP in comparison to the other two devices, even though this difference is not clinically relevant. The use of Ambu® AuraGain™ was associated with difficult and lowest first-time insertion success rate (P < 0.001) along with an increased incidence of airway trauma as compared to the other two SADs. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9511860 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer - Medknow |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-95118602022-09-27 A randomized comparative study of three supraglottic airway devices for controlled ventilation in anesthetized patients Sharma, Manoj Sharma, Bimla Gupta, Manish Panday, Bhuwan Chand Sahai, Chand Sood, Jayashree J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol Original Article BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The LMA® ProSeal™, LMA® Supreme™ and Ambu® AuraGain™ are second-generation supraglottic airway devices (SADs) with integrated gastric access. In this study, we compared the clinical performance of these three devices in adults for controlled ventilation in anesthetized paralysed patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two hundred and seventy adults, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status I-III, undergoing elective surgical procedures, were randomized into three groups with 90 patients in each: Group 1: LMA® ProSeal™, Group 2: LMA® Supreme™ and Group 3: Ambu® AuraGain™. All the three devices were evaluated for oropharyngeal seal pressure (OSP) and other parameters: ease and the number of attempts at device placement, fibreoptic laryngeal view and intraoperative and postoperative complications. RESULTS: In the present study, the mean OSP was 38.9 ± 3.050 cm H(2)O in the LMA ProSeal™ group, 37.41 ± 4.097 cm H(2)O in LMA® Supreme™ group and 37.32 ± 3.740 cm H(2)O in Ambu® AuraGain™ group. The difference was found to be statistically significant (P = 0.006). The three groups were comparable for the ease of device insertion, number of attempts at device placement, fibreoptic laryngeal view, intraoperative and postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: In this study, we found that the LMA® ProSeal™ provided the highest OSP in comparison to the other two devices, even though this difference is not clinically relevant. The use of Ambu® AuraGain™ was associated with difficult and lowest first-time insertion success rate (P < 0.001) along with an increased incidence of airway trauma as compared to the other two SADs. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022 2021-11-18 /pmc/articles/PMC9511860/ /pubmed/36171925 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/joacp.JOACP_465_20 Text en Copyright: © 2021 Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology https://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 Sharma, Manoj Sharma, Bimla Gupta, Manish Panday, Bhuwan Chand Sahai, Chand Sood, Jayashree A randomized comparative study of three supraglottic airway devices for controlled ventilation in anesthetized patients |
title | A randomized comparative study of three supraglottic airway devices for controlled ventilation in anesthetized patients |
title_full | A randomized comparative study of three supraglottic airway devices for controlled ventilation in anesthetized patients |
title_fullStr | A randomized comparative study of three supraglottic airway devices for controlled ventilation in anesthetized patients |
title_full_unstemmed | A randomized comparative study of three supraglottic airway devices for controlled ventilation in anesthetized patients |
title_short | A randomized comparative study of three supraglottic airway devices for controlled ventilation in anesthetized patients |
title_sort | randomized comparative study of three supraglottic airway devices for controlled ventilation in anesthetized patients |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9511860/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36171925 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/joacp.JOACP_465_20 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sharmamanoj arandomizedcomparativestudyofthreesupraglotticairwaydevicesforcontrolledventilationinanesthetizedpatients AT sharmabimla arandomizedcomparativestudyofthreesupraglotticairwaydevicesforcontrolledventilationinanesthetizedpatients AT guptamanish arandomizedcomparativestudyofthreesupraglotticairwaydevicesforcontrolledventilationinanesthetizedpatients AT pandaybhuwanchand arandomizedcomparativestudyofthreesupraglotticairwaydevicesforcontrolledventilationinanesthetizedpatients AT sahaichand arandomizedcomparativestudyofthreesupraglotticairwaydevicesforcontrolledventilationinanesthetizedpatients AT soodjayashree arandomizedcomparativestudyofthreesupraglotticairwaydevicesforcontrolledventilationinanesthetizedpatients AT sharmamanoj randomizedcomparativestudyofthreesupraglotticairwaydevicesforcontrolledventilationinanesthetizedpatients AT sharmabimla randomizedcomparativestudyofthreesupraglotticairwaydevicesforcontrolledventilationinanesthetizedpatients AT guptamanish randomizedcomparativestudyofthreesupraglotticairwaydevicesforcontrolledventilationinanesthetizedpatients AT pandaybhuwanchand randomizedcomparativestudyofthreesupraglotticairwaydevicesforcontrolledventilationinanesthetizedpatients AT sahaichand randomizedcomparativestudyofthreesupraglotticairwaydevicesforcontrolledventilationinanesthetizedpatients AT soodjayashree randomizedcomparativestudyofthreesupraglotticairwaydevicesforcontrolledventilationinanesthetizedpatients |