Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T05:08:45.361Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of LMA Unique, Ambu laryngeal mask and Soft Seal laryngeal mask during routine surgical procedures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 August 2006

H. Francksen ,
B. Bein ,
E. Cavus ,
J. Renner ,
J. Scholz ,
M. Steinfath ,
P. H. Tonner  and
V. Doerges
H. Francksen
Affiliation:
University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Kiel, Germany
B. Bein
Affiliation:
University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Kiel, Germany
E. Cavus
Affiliation:
University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Kiel, Germany
J. Renner
Affiliation:
University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Kiel, Germany
J. Scholz
Affiliation:
University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Kiel, Germany
M. Steinfath
Affiliation:
University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Kiel, Germany
P. H. Tonner
Affiliation:
University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Kiel, Germany
V. Doerges
Affiliation:
University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Kiel, Germany
Get access

Abstract

Summary

Background and objective: This study was performed to compare three disposable airway devices, the LMA Unique (LMA-U), the Ambu laryngeal mask (Ambu LM) and the Soft Seal laryngeal mask (Soft Seal LM) for elective general anaesthesia during controlled ventilation in non-paralysed patients. Methods: One hundred and twenty ASA I–III patients scheduled for routine minor obstetric surgery were randomly allocated to the LMA-U (n = 40), Ambu LM (n = 40) or Soft Seal LM (n = 40) groups, respectively. Patients were comparable with respect to weight and airway characteristics. A size 4 LMA was used in all patients and inserted by a single experienced anaesthesiologist. Oxygenation, overall success rate, insertion time, cuff pressure and resulting airway leak pressure were determined as well as a subjective assessment of handling and the incidence of sore throat, dysphagia and hoarseness. Results: Time of insertion was shortest with the Ambu LM, while failure rates were comparable with the LMA-U, the Ambu LM and the Soft Seal LM (median 19 s; range 8–57 s; success rate 100% vs. 14; 8–35; 97% vs. 20; 12–46; 95%). Insertion was judged ‘excellent’ in 75% of patients in the LMA-U group, in 70% of patients in Ambu LM group and in 65% of patients in the Soft Seal LM group. There was no difference between devices with respect to postoperative airway morbidity at 6 h or 24 h following surgery. Conclusions: All three disposable devices were clinically suitable with respect to insertion times, success rates, oxygenation, airway and leak pressures, as well as to subjective handling and postoperative airway morbidity.

Keywords

LARYNGEAL MASKS, comparisonRESPIRATION ARTIFICIALEQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIESADVERSE EFFECTS
Type
Original Article
Information
European Journal of Anaesthesiology , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , February 2007 , pp. 134 - 140
Copyright
2007 European Society of Anaesthesiology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Miller DM, Youkhana I, Karunaratne WUet al. Presence of protein deposits on ‘cleaned’ re-usable anaesthetic equipment. Anaesthesia 2001; 56: 1069–1072.Google Scholar
Bein B, Scholz J. Supraglottic airway devices. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 2005; 19: 581–593.Google Scholar
Brimacombe J, Keller C, Morris Ret al. A comparison of the disposable versus the reusable laryngeal mask airway in paralyzed adult patients. Anesth Analg 1998; 87: 921–924.Google Scholar
Brimacombe J, von Goedecke A, Keller Cet al. The laryngeal mask airway Unique versus the Soft Seal laryngeal mask: a randomized, crossover study in paralyzed, anesthetized patients. Anesth Analg 2004; 99: 1560–1563.Google Scholar
Hagberg CA, Jensen FS, Genzwuerker HVet al. A multicenter study of the Ambu laryngeal mask in nonparalyzed, anesthetized patients. Anesth Analg 2005; 101: 1862–1866.Google Scholar
Van Zundert AA, Fonck K, Al-Shaikh Bet al. Comparison of the LMA-classic with the new disposable soft seal laryngeal mask in spontaneously breathing adult patients. Anesthesiology 2003; 99: 1066–1071.Google Scholar
Cook TM. The classic laryngeal mask airway: a tried and tested airway. What now? Br J Anaesth 2006; 96: 149–152.Google Scholar
Orlikowski CE. An audit of the Single Use Portex Laryngeal Mask. Anaesth Intensive Care 2004; 32: 693–696.Google Scholar
Cao MM, Webb T, Bjorksten AR. Comparison of disposable and reusable laryngeal mask airways in spontaneously ventilating adult patients. Anaesth Intensive Care 2004; 32: 530–534.Google Scholar
Shafik MT, Bahlman BU, Hall JEet al. A comparison of the Soft Seal disposable and the Classic re-usable laryngeal mask airway. Anaesthesia 2006; 61: 178–181.Google Scholar
van Zundert AA, Fonck K, Al-Shaikh Bet al. Comparison of cuff-pressure changes in LMA-Classic and the new Soft Seal laryngeal masks during nitrous oxide anaesthesia in spontaneous breathing patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2004; 21: 547–552.Google Scholar
Verghese C, Berlet J, Kapila Aet al. Clinical assessment of the single use laryngeal mask airway – the LMA-unique. Br J Anaesth 1998; 80: 677–679.Google Scholar
Paech MJ, Lain J, Garrett WRet al. Randomized evaluation of the single-use Soft Seal and the re-useable LMA Classic laryngeal mask. Anaesth Intensive Care 2004; 32: 66–72.Google Scholar
Paech MJ, Tweedie O, Stannard Ket al. Randomised, crossover comparison of the single-use Soft Seal and the LMA Unique laryngeal mask airways. Anaesthesia 2005; 60: 354–359.Google Scholar
Tan MG, Chin ER, Kong CSet al. Comparison of the re-usable LMA Classic and two single-use laryngeal masks (LMA Unique and Soft Seal) in airway management by novice personnel. Anaesth Intensive Care 2005; 33: 739–743.Google Scholar
Cook TM, Trumpelmann P, Beringer Ret al. A randomised comparison of the Portex Soft seal laryngeal mask airway with the LMA-Unique during anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 2005; 60: 1218–1225.Google Scholar
Bein B, Carstensen S, Gleim Met al. A comparison of the proseal laryngeal mask airway, the laryngeal tube S and the oesophageal–tracheal combitube during routine surgical procedures. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2005; 22: 341–346.Google Scholar
Keller C, Brimacombe J, Moriggl Bet al. In cadavers, directly measured mucosal pressures are similar for the Unique and the Soft Seal laryngeal mask airway devices. Can J Anaesth 2004; 51: 834–837.Google Scholar
Keller C, Brimacombe J, Kleinsasser Aet al. Pharyngeal mucosal pressures with the laryngeal tube airway versus ProSeal laryngeal mask airway. Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther 2003; 38: 393–396.Google Scholar
Brimacombe J, Keller C, Roth Wet al. Large cuff volumes impede posterior pharyngeal mucosal perfusion with the laryngeal tube airway. Can J Anaesth 2002; 49: 1084–1087.Google Scholar
Brimacombe J, Holyoake L, Keller Cet al. Emergence characteristics and postoperative laryngopharyngeal morbidity with the laryngeal mask airway: a comparison of high versus low initial cuff volume. Anaesthesia 2000; 55: 338–343.Google Scholar
Keller C, Puhringer F, Brimacombe JR. Influence of cuff volume on oropharyngeal leak pressure and fibreoptic position with the laryngeal mask airway. Br J Anaesth 1998; 81: 186–187.Google Scholar