A randomised comparison of the LMA Supreme™ and LMA ProSeal™ in children
Narasimhan Jagannathan, Lisa Sohn, Amod Sawardekar, J. R. Gordon, Kenneth E. Langen, Kyle Anderson
Abstract
Open-access reader
Narasimhan Jagannathan, Lisa Sohn, Amod Sawardekar, J. R. Gordon, Kenneth E. Langen, Kyle Anderson
Abstract
Open-access reader
We conducted a randomised trial comparing the size-2 LMA Supreme™ with the LMA ProSeal™ in 60 children undergoing surgery. The outcomes measured were airway leak pressure, ease and time for insertion, fibreoptic examination, incidence of gastric insufflation, ease of gastric tube placement, quality of the airway during anaesthetic maintenance and complications. There were no statistically significant differences between the LMA Supreme and LMA ProSeal in median (IQR [range]) insertion time (12 (10-15 [7-18]) s vs 12 (10-13 [8-25]) s; p = 0.90), airway leak pressures (19 (16-21 [12-30]) cmH(2) O vs 18 (16-24 [10-34]) cmH(2) O; p = 0.55), fibreoptic position of the airway or drain tube, ease of gastric access and complications. Both devices provided effective ventilation requiring minimal airway manipulation. The LMA Supreme can be a useful alternative to the LMA ProSeal when single-use supraglottic devices with gastric access capabilities are required.
OpenAlex reports 52 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
We conducted a randomised trial comparing the size-2 LMA Supreme™ with the LMA ProSeal™ in 60 children undergoing surgery. The outcomes measured were airway leak pressure, ease and time for insertion, fibreoptic examination, incidence of gastric insufflation, ease of gastric tube placement, quality of the airway during anaesthetic maintenance and complications. There were no statistically significant differences between the LMA Supreme and LMA ProSeal in median (IQR [range]) insertion time (12 (10-15 [7-18]) s vs 12 (10-13 [8-25]) s; p = 0.90), airway leak pressures (19 (16-21 [12-30]) cmH(2) O vs 18 (16-24 [10-34]) cmH(2) O; p = 0.55), fibreoptic position of the airway or drain tube, ease of gastric access and complications. Both devices provided effective ventilation requiring minimal airway manipulation. The LMA Supreme can be a useful alternative to the LMA ProSeal when single-use supraglottic devices with gastric access capabilities are required.
Key concepts: Medicine, Laryngeal mask airway, Airway, Insertion time, Anesthesia, Laryngeal Masks, Insufflation, Leak