A comparison of the disposable Ambu ® AuraOnce ™ Laryngeal Mask with the reusable LMA Classic ™ laryngeal mask airway*
G. Sudhir, David Redfern, Judith E. Hall, A. R. Wilkes, C. Cann
Abstract
Open-access reader
G. Sudhir, David Redfern, Judith E. Hall, A. R. Wilkes, C. Cann
Abstract
Open-access reader
Single-use supraglottic airway devices are now available and are intended to be comparable with the reusable LMA Classic laryngeal mask airway. We performed a randomised cross-over study comparing the Ambu AuraOnce Laryngeal Mask with the LMA Classic. Fifty patients participated in the trial. Success rates for insertion at the first attempt were similar (92% with the Ambu and 84% with the LMA Classic; p = 0.22). The volumes of air required to inflate the cuff to produce a seal were similar, but the cuff pressure was lower for the Ambu Laryngeal Mask (median (IQR [range]) 18 (10-31 [0-100] cmH(2)O) than the LMA Classic 27 (17-50 [4-90] cmH(2)O; p = 0.007). Visual analogue scores for ease of insertion were 87 (73-93 [26-97]) mm for the Ambu and 84 (60-89 [18-96]) for the LMA Classic (p = 0.017). Complications were similar in both groups. We suggest that the disposable Ambu Laryngeal Mask is an acceptable alternative to the reusable LMA Classic.
OpenAlex reports 22 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.
Single-use supraglottic airway devices are now available and are intended to be comparable with the reusable LMA Classic laryngeal mask airway. We performed a randomised cross-over study comparing the Ambu AuraOnce Laryngeal Mask with the LMA Classic. Fifty patients participated in the trial. Success rates for insertion at the first attempt were similar (92% with the Ambu and 84% with the LMA Classic; p = 0.22). The volumes of air required to inflate the cuff to produce a seal were similar, but the cuff pressure was lower for the Ambu Laryngeal Mask (median (IQR [range]) 18 (10-31 [0-100] cmH(2)O) than the LMA Classic 27 (17-50 [4-90] cmH(2)O; p = 0.007). Visual analogue scores for ease of insertion were 87 (73-93 [26-97]) mm for the Ambu and 84 (60-89 [18-96]) for the LMA Classic (p = 0.017). Complications were similar in both groups. We suggest that the disposable Ambu Laryngeal Mask is an acceptable alternative to the reusable LMA Classic.
Key concepts: Medicine, Laryngeal mask airway, Supraglottic airway, Cuff, Laryngeal Masks, Insertion time, Mascara, Larynx