A Comparative Study on Supraglottic Airway Devices Classic LMA, Proseal LMA, Blockbuster LMA in Adult Patients Undergoing Short Surgical Procedures
Authors/Creators
- 1. Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Govt. Medical College, Pudukkottai, Tamilnadu
- 2. Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Govt. Medical College, Thoothukudi, Tamilnadu
- 3. Assistant Professor, Institute of Anaesthesiology, Madurai Medical College, Madurai, Tamilnadu
Description
Introduction: The invention of supraglottic devices changed the focus of airway management during general anaesthesia (GA) from intubation to oxygenation and ventilation. There were many improvements in LMA with regard to intubation facility, anatomical similarity and increase in cuff volume. Hence comparative studies with various types of LMA is essential for its proper selection as per the need. Aim: The aim was to compare the utility of three different supraglottic airway devices namely Classic LMA, Proseal LMA and Blockbuster LMA. Materials and Methods: This was a randomized single blind triple arm study involving 30 patients in each three groups. (Group C: classic LMA, Group P: proseal LMA and Group B: block buster LMA). The number of attempts, time and ease for insertion, sealing pressure, hemodynamic changes and complications were studied. SPSS software was used for statistical analysis. One-way ANOVA, Tukey HDS and chi-square test were used. The p value of < 0.05 was statistically significant. Results: The time needed for insertion was significantly less with Proseal group and it was easy to insert than others. It also has less incidence of sore throat, blood staining and displacement. There was no significant difference with regards to attempt on first insertion, airway sealing pressure or hemodynamic changes between three groups. The block buster type was easy to insert and had less rate of complications than the classical type. Conclusion: All the three supraglottic airway devices (classic, proseal, blockbuster LMA) can be safely used during GA and Positive Pressure Ventilation. Proseal LMA was quickly inserted than other types in this study with less complications than blockbuster type.
Abstract (English)
Introduction: The invention of supraglottic devices changed the focus of airway management during general anaesthesia (GA) from intubation to oxygenation and ventilation. There were many improvements in LMA with regard to intubation facility, anatomical similarity and increase in cuff volume. Hence comparative studies with various types of LMA is essential for its proper selection as per the need. Aim: The aim was to compare the utility of three different supraglottic airway devices namely Classic LMA, Proseal LMA and Blockbuster LMA. Materials and Methods: This was a randomized single blind triple arm study involving 30 patients in each three groups. (Group C: classic LMA, Group P: proseal LMA and Group B: block buster LMA). The number of attempts, time and ease for insertion, sealing pressure, hemodynamic changes and complications were studied. SPSS software was used for statistical analysis. One-way ANOVA, Tukey HDS and chi-square test were used. The p value of < 0.05 was statistically significant. Results: The time needed for insertion was significantly less with Proseal group and it was easy to insert than others. It also has less incidence of sore throat, blood staining and displacement. There was no significant difference with regards to attempt on first insertion, airway sealing pressure or hemodynamic changes between three groups. The block buster type was easy to insert and had less rate of complications than the classical type. Conclusion: All the three supraglottic airway devices (classic, proseal, blockbuster LMA) can be safely used during GA and Positive Pressure Ventilation. Proseal LMA was quickly inserted than other types in this study with less complications than blockbuster type.
Files
IJPCR,Vol15,Issue4,Article111.pdf
Files
(406.1 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:fab213c5620bb9f9559a79e7dd222094
|
406.1 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Dates
- Accepted
-
2023-03-30
Software
- Repository URL
- https://impactfactor.org/PDF/IJPCR/15/IJPCR,Vol15,Issue4,Article111.pdf
- Development Status
- Active
References
- 1. Nolan JD. Prehospital and resuscitative airway care: should the gold standard be reassessed? CurrOpin Crit Care. 2001; 7:413–21. 2. Kim MS, Bai SJ, Oh JT, et al. Comparison of 2 cuff inflation methods before insertion of laryngeal mask airway for safe use without cuff manometer in children. Am J Emerg Med. 2013; 31:346–52. 3. Choi GJ, Kang H, Baek CW, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the i-gel® vs laryngeal mask airway in children. Anaesthesia. 2014; 69: 1258–65. 4. De Montblanc J, Ruscio L, Mazoit JX, et al. A systematic review and metaanalysis of thei-gel® vs laryngeal mask airway in adults. Anaesthesia. 2014; 69:1151–62. 5. Lee JR, Kim MS, Kim JT, et al. A randomised trial comparing the i-gel™ with the LMA Classic™ in children. Anaesthesia. 2012; 67:606–11. 6. Castle N, Owen R, Hann M, et al. Assessment of the speed and ease of insertion of three supraglottic airway devices by paramedics: a manikin study. Emerg Med J. 2010; 27:860–3. 7. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343: d5928. 8. Chen Z, Zhang G, Li J. Goodnessof-fit test for meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2015; 5:16983. 9. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 2005; 5:13. 10. Maitra S, Baidya DK, Bhattacharjee S, et al. Evaluation of i-gel™ airway in children: a meta-analysis. Paediatr Anaesth. 2014; 24:1072–9. 11. H shimbori, K Ono, T Miwa et al. Comparison of LMA Proseal and LMA classic in children BJA. 2004 Oct;93(4):528-31. 12. Chloros T, Xanthos T, Iacovidou N, et al. Supreme laryngeal mask airway achieves faster insertion times than Classic LMA during chest compressions in manikins. Am J Emerg Med. 2014; 32:156–9. 13. Schunk D, Ritzka M, Graf B, et al. A comparison of three supraglottic airway devices used by healthcare professionals during paediatric resuscitation simulation. Emerg Med J. 2013; 30:754–7. 14. Chen X, Jiao J, Cong X, et al. A comparison of the performance of the I-gelvs. the LMA-S during anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 2013;8: e71910 15. Stroumpoulis K, Isaia C, Bassiakou E, et al. A comparison of the i-gel and classic LMA insertion in manikins by experienced and novice physicians. Eur J Emerg Med. 2012; 19:24–7. 16. Goliasch G, Ruetzler A, Fischer H, et al. Evaluation of advanced airway management in absolutely inexperienced hands: a randomized manikin trial. Eur J Emerg Med. 2013; 20:310–4. 17. Castle N, Pillay Y, Spencer N. Insertion of six different supraglottic airway devices whilst wearing chemical, biological, radiation, nuclear-personal protective equipment: a manikin study. Anaesthesia. 2011; 66:983–8. 18. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6: e1000097. 19. Kwak DI, Yoo JH, No HW, et al. Comparison between the LMA Classic™and new I-gel™ supraglottic airway device: a manikin study. Hong Kong JEmerg Med. 2013; 20:25–33. 20. Kim MS, Lee JR, Shin YS, et al. Comparison of 2 cuff inflation methods of laryngeal mask airway Classic for safe use without cuff manometer in adults. Am J Emerg Med. 2014; 32:237–42. 21. Ragazzi R, Finessi L, Farinelli I, et al.LMA Supreme vs i-gel—a comparison of insertion success in novices. Anaesthesia. 2012; 67:384–8. 22. Cook TM, Green C, McGrath J, et al. Evaluation of four airway training manikins as patient simulators for the insertion of single use laryngeal mask airways. Anaesthesia. 2007; 62:713–8.