2021•Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical PharmacologyOpen access

Laryngeal mask airway protector generates higher oropharyngeal leak pressures compared to the laryngeal mask airway supreme

Emilie Acx, Els Van Caelenberg, Luc De Baerdemaeker, Marc J. Coppens

Open full text 14 citations

Abstract

Background and Aims: The Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) Protector™ is one of the latest introduced supraglottic airway devices. It provides access and functional separation of the respiratory and digestive tracts. Compared to the LMA Supreme™, it has two digestive ports, one to provide suction in the pharyngeal region and one for gastric tube insertion. High oropharyngeal leak pressure is a marker for safe ventilation when using LMA devices. We hypothesized that oropharyngeal leak pressure of the LMA Protector™ is 5 cm H 2 O higher than the oropharyngeal leak pressure of the LMA Supreme™ at various cuff volumes. Secondary outcome measures were ease of insertion of both masks, fiberoptic confirmation of correct positioning, failures of insertion, presence of blood staining, sore throat, presence of air leak and insertion time. Material and Methods: American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-III patients aged >18 years, scheduled for elective minor ambulatory surgery under general anesthesia with a LMA were included. Patients were randomized in the LMA Protector™ or LMA Supreme™ group based on a computer-generated random sequence table. After general anesthesia induction, oropharyngeal leak pressures were measured. Results: Oropharyngeal leak pressures were significantly higher ( P < 0.0001) for LMA Protector™ compared to LMA Supreme™ at different cuff volumes and a cuff pressure of 65 cm H 2 O. Insertion time was significantly higher for the LMA Protector™ (29 sec) [interquartile range (IQR) 23, 35] compared to the LMA Supreme™ (19 sec) (IQR 16, 22) ( P < 0.0001). There were no statistically significant differences in ease of insertion (number of attempts for succesful positioning), failures of insertion, presence of blood staining, sore throat or presence of air leak. Conclusion: Oropharyngeal leak pressures were consistently higher (>5 cm H 2 O) for LMA Protector™ compared to LMA Supreme™. LMA Protector™, therefore, allows effective ventilation at higher airway pressures than LMA Supreme™. Trial Registration: http://clinicaltrials.gov.NCT03462550.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Background and Aims: The Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) Protector™ is one of the latest introduced supraglottic airway devices. It provides access and functional separation of the respiratory and digestive tracts. Compared to the LMA Supreme™, it has two digestive ports, one to provide suction in the pharyngeal region and one for gastric tube insertion. High oropharyngeal leak pressure is a marker for safe ventilation when using LMA devices. We hypothesized that oropharyngeal leak pressure of the LMA Protector™ is 5 cm H 2 O higher than the oropharyngeal leak pressure of the LMA Supreme™ at various cuff volumes. Secondary outcome measures were ease of insertion of both masks, fiberoptic confirmation of correct positioning, failures of insertion, presence of blood staining, sore throat, presence of air leak and insertion time. Material and Methods: American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-III patients aged >18 years, scheduled for elective minor ambulatory surgery under general anesthesia with a LMA were included. Patients were randomized in the LMA Protector™ or LMA Supreme™ group based on a computer-generated random sequence table. After general anesthesia induction, oropharyngeal leak pressures were measured. Results: Oropharyngeal leak pressures were significantly higher ( P < 0.0001) for LMA Protector™ compared to LMA Supreme™ at different cuff volumes and a cuff pressure of 65 cm H 2 O. Insertion time was significantly higher for the LMA Protector™ (29 sec) [interquartile range (IQR) 23, 35] compared to the LMA Supreme™ (19 sec) (IQR 16, 22) ( P < 0.0001). There were no statistically significant differences in ease of insertion (number of attempts for succesful positioning), failures of insertion, presence of blood staining, sore throat or presence of air leak. Conclusion: Oropharyngeal leak pressures were consistently higher (>5 cm H 2 O) for LMA Protector™ compared to LMA Supreme™. LMA Protector™, therefore, allows effective ventilation at higher airway pressures than LMA Supreme™. Trial Registration: http://clinicaltrials.gov.NCT03462550.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 14 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Background and Aims: The Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) Protector™ is one of the latest introduced supraglottic airway devices. It provides access and functional separation of the respiratory and digestive tracts. Compared to the LMA Supreme™, it has two digestive ports, one to provide suction in the pharyngeal region and one for gastric tube insertion. High oropharyngeal leak pressure is a marker for safe ventilation when using LMA devices. We hypothesized that oropharyngeal leak pressure of the LMA Protector™ is 5 cm H 2 O higher than the oropharyngeal leak pressure of the LMA Supreme™ at various cuff volumes. Secondary outcome measures were ease of insertion of both masks, fiberoptic confirmation of correct positioning, failures of insertion, presence of blood staining, sore throat, presence of air leak and insertion time. Material and Methods: American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-III patients aged >18 years, scheduled for elective minor ambulatory surgery under general anesthesia with a LMA were included. Patients were randomized in the LMA Protector™ or LMA Supreme™ group based on a computer-generated random sequence table. After general anesthesia induction, oropharyngeal leak pressures were measured. Results: Oropharyngeal leak pressures were significantly higher ( P < 0.0001) for LMA Protector™ compared to LMA Supreme™ at different cuff volumes and a cuff pressure of 65 cm H 2 O. Insertion time was significantly higher for the LMA Protector™ (29 sec) [interquartile range (IQR) 23, 35] compared to the LMA Supreme™ (19 sec) (IQR 16, 22) ( P < 0.0001). There were no statistically significant differences in ease of insertion (number of attempts for succesful positioning), failures of insertion, presence of blood staining, sore throat or presence of air leak. Conclusion: Oropharyngeal leak pressures were consistently higher (>5 cm H 2 O) for LMA Protector™ compared to LMA Supreme™. LMA Protector™, therefore, allows effective ventilation at higher airway pressures than LMA Supreme™. Trial Registration: http://clinicaltrials.gov.NCT03462550.

Key concepts: Medicine, Laryngeal mask airway, Insertion time, Leak, Cuff, Laryngeal Masks, Anesthesia, Surgery

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Laryngeal mask airway protector generates higher oropharyngeal leak pressures compared to the laryngeal mask airway supreme — Research Paper | ScholarLens