Can Supreme™ laryngeal mask airway be an alternative to endotracheal intubation in laparoscopic surgery?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In laparoscopic surgical procedures, experts recommend tracheal intubation for airway management. Laryngeal mask airway (LMA) can be a good alternative to intubation. In this case series, we aimed to examine the use of the Supreme™ LMA (SLMA) in laparoscopic surgical practice. METHODS: We planned the study for sixty patients between the ages of 18 and 60, who would undergo laparoscopic surgery. We recorded one, 15, 30, 45, and 60-minute peripheral O2 saturation (SpO2) and end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO2) values, heart rate and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP). We observed the duration of SLMA insertion, the rate of gastric tube applicability, whether nausea, vomiting, and coughing developed, and whether there was postoperative 1-hour sore throat. RESULTS: The initial EtCO2 mean was lower than the EtCO2 means of 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes (p < 0.0001) and the 15-minute EtCO2 mean was lower than other measured EtCO2 means. We observed the initial heart rate mean to be higher than the ones following the SLMA insertion, prior to the SLMA removal, and after the SLMA removal. The heart rate mean after the SLMA insertion was remarkably lower than the heart rate mean prior to the SLMA removal (p=0.013). The MAP after the SLMA insertion was lower than the initial MAP means, as well as the MAP averages prior to after the removal of SLMA (p=0.0001). CONCLUSION: SLMA can be a suitable alternative to intubation in laparoscopic surgical procedures in a group of selected patients.

Comparison of laryngeal mask airway supreme and laryngeal mask airway proseal for laryngopharyngeal trauma and postoperative morbidity in children.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Laryngeal mask airway (LMA), which has been used frequently in airway management, can cause laryngopharyngeal injury and morbidity. In this trial, we compare the macroscopic changes on laryngopharyngeal structures and the postoperative laryngopharyngeal morbidity by using LMA supreme with LMA proseal in children. METHODS: We divided patients into two groups. We inserted size three LMA proseal into the first group and size three LMA supreme into the second group. Before LMA insertion and after LMA removal, we performed direct laryngoscopy on the patients. We compared hyperemia, mucosal injury and blood staining on LMA removal, as well as insertion time, rate of success in gastric tube insertion on the first attempt, nausea, vomiting, and sore throat between the two groups. RESULTS: We recorded no significant differences between the two groups for mean operation time, sex, age, weight, rate of success in gastric tube insertion on first attempt, nausea, vomiting, sore throat and mucosal injury. Mean insertion time for the LMA proseal group was significantly longer than the LMA supreme group (p = 0.0001). The ratio of blood staining on LMA removal was significantly higher in the LMA proseal group than the LMA supreme group (p = 0.034). The patients with blood staining on LMA removal exhibited significantly more mucosal hyperemia and injury than the patients with clear LMA (p = 0.0001, p = 0.020). CONCLUSION: LMA supreme insertion is faster and easier than LMA proseal and causes less laryngopharyngeal injury than LMA proseal in children.