RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The objective of this prospective randomized blinded study was to assess the safety and efficacy of the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) Supreme as compared with the LMA Proseal. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 60 patients were randomised into two groups to either receive a Proseal LMA (PLMA) or Supreme LMA (SLMA) for airway management. The primary outcome was to measure oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) in both groups. The secondary outcomes were the measurement of insertion time, insertion success rate, fibreoptic grading, intracuff pressure, ease of ventilation, and airway pressure on standard ventilatory settings and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Intracuff pressure increase after 60 minutes of induction was significantly higher in the PLMA group (PLMA 97.43 ± 11.03 cm of H2O and SLMA 75.17 ± 8.95 cm of H2O). OLP was recorded after device insertion, after 30 min and after 60 min in each group and was found to be 28.71 ± 2.97, 30.93 ± 2.87, and 31.93 ± 2.72 cm of H2O in PLMA and 24.84 ± 2.08, 26.73 ± 2.26, and 27.95 ± 2.55 cm of H2O in SLMA group, respectively. The mean OLP with the SLMA was significantly (p=<.001) lower than PLMA. All the other parameters were comparable in both groups. CONCLUSION: PLMA is better than SLMA as airway device to ventilate at higher airway pressure in paralyzed adult patients. On the basis of our study, we recommend Proseal over Supreme LMA.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The i-gel is a novel and innovative supraglottic airway management device used both as an airway rescue device and as a conduit for fiberoptic intubation. In this prospective randomized study, we compared fiberoptic-guided tracheal intubation through the i-gel and LMA Fastrach™ in adult paralyzed patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After ethical committee approval and written informed consent, 60 patients of either sex were randomly allocated to either group of supraglottic airway device (SGAD). After successful insertion of the SGAD, the fiberoptic bronchoscope (FOB)-guided tracheal intubation was done through the respective SGAD. The primary objectives were the ease and time taken for fiberoptic-guided intubation in either group. Secondary variables included time taken for successful placement of SGAD, ease of insertion of SGAD, airway seal pressure, ease and time of removal of SGAD, variation in hemodynamic parameters, and complications if any. RESULTS: Time taken for tracheal intubation in LMA Fastrach™ group was 69.53 ± 5.09 s and for the i-gel group it was 72.33 ± 6.73 s. It was seen that it was easy to insert the endotracheal tube (ETT) in 93.3% patients in the LMA Fastrach™ group and 96.7% patients in the i-gel group. Airway seal pressure was higher for the LMA Fastrach™ group. Both the SGADs were comparable in the number of attempts of insertion, ease of insertion, and insertion time. In addition, the hemodynamic variables noted did not show any increase after insertion of SGAD. There was no difficulty encountered in removal of either SGAD. CONCLUSION: I-gel may be a reliable and cost-effective alternative to LMA Fastrach™ for fibreoptic-guided tracheal intubation.
