A comparison between the Supreme laryngeal mask airway and the laryngeal tube suction during spontaneous ventilation: A randomized prospective study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Supreme laryngeal mask airway (SLMA) and the laryngeal tube suction-disposable (LTS-D), both second-generation supraglottic airway devices, have a record of efficiency when used for airway management in mechanically ventilated patients, during general anesthesia. There is no published data comparing these two devices in patients breathing spontaneously during general anesthesia. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty patients with normal airways undergoing elective general anesthesia with spontaneous ventilation were randomized to airway management with a SLMA or LTS-D. Efficacy and adequacy of oxygenation and ventilation were compared. RESULTS: No cases of desaturation of oxygen saturation (SpO2) values of less than 95% occurred with either device. The mean difference for SpO2 between the two devices (0.7%) has no clinical significance. Slight hypercapnia was noted with both devices to acceptable values during spontaneous ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: Both SLMA and LTS-D are suitable and effective for airway management in patients breathing spontaneously during general anesthesia for minor surgery of short duration.

A feasibility study using the VivaSight Single Lumen™ to intubate the trachea through the Fastrach laryngeal mask airway: a preliminary report of 50 cases.

BACKGROUND: The VivaSight Single Lumen™ (SL) is new endotracheal tube with a video camera and a light source in the tip allowing continuous visual observation of the airway. In this study, we checked the feasibility of endotracheal intubation with a VivaSight-SL through the Fastrach Laryngeal Mask Airway(®) (FT-LMA). METHODS: We studied 50 patients with normal airways, scheduled for elective surgery during general anesthesia requiring endotracheal intubation. The FT-LMA was inserted and once adequate ventilation was achieved, the VivaSight-SL was passed through the FT-LMA into the trachea under visual control. The following criteria were used to score the laryngeal view: grade 1: full view of the arytenoids and glottis; grade 2: epiglottis, arytenoids or glottic opening are partly visible, the structure of cords is difficult to see; grade 3: dark areas indicating an open space; and grade 4: no part of the larynx can be identified. RESULTS: The FT-LMA was placed successfully in 49 patients at the first attempt. One patient was excluded from the study after 2 failed attempts to ventilate with the FT-LMA. All 49 patients were successfully intubated with the VivaSight-SL, (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.89-0.99), 47 patients at the first attempt (95% CI, 0.83-0.98) and 2 patients at the second attempt. (95% CI, 0.004-0.13). The time to achieve an effective airway with the FT-LMA was 15.4 ± 6 (mean ± SD) seconds. The time to achieve a laryngeal view with the VivaSight-SL was 28.8 ± 5 seconds. Correct position of the VivaSight-SL was confirmed with visualization of the carina. Time of successful intubation with VivaSight-SL from picking up the VivaSight-SL to observing a end-tidal CO(2) curve was 45 ± 7 seconds. After introducing the VivaSight-SL through the intubating channel of the FT-LMA, a grade 1 view was obtained in 18 patients, grade 2 in 18 patients, a grade 3 in 4 patients, and grade 4 in 9 patients. CONCLUSION: The high first-attempt intubation success rate using the VivaSight-SL to intubate the trachea through a FT-LMA makes this technique an attractive and promising concept.

Prospective randomized comparison of the EasyTube and the esophageal-tracheal Combitube airway devices during general anesthesia with mechanical ventilation.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ease of use of two airway devices, the EasyTube (EzT) versus the esophageal-tracheal Combitube (ETC). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: University hospital. SUBJECTS: 80 adult, ASA physical status 1 and 2 patients scheduled for elective surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Patients' tracheas were intubated with the EzT or the ETC in randomized fashion. MEASUREMENTS: Difficulty of insertion, time to achieve an effective airway, insertion success rate, maneuvers to achieve an effective airway, oropharyngeal leak pressure, intracuff pressure, ventilatory parameters, success rate of gastric tube insertion, and frequency of adverse effects were compared. MAIN RESULTS: Insertion was easier in the EzT than in ETC; insertion of the EzT was rated easy in 36 7 cases and moderately difficult in 4 cases versus 26 and 14 cases, respectively, for the ETC (P = 0.014). Less time was required to achieve an effective airway with the EzT than the ETC: 19.4 ± 5.3 sec versus 30.6 ± 4.1 seconds, respectively (P < 0.001). Oropharyngeal leak pressure was higher with the EzT than the ETC (34.3 ± 5.95 vs 31.6 ± 2.42 cm H(2)O; P = 0.011). Peak airway pressures for the EZT and the ETC were 22.2 ± 0.99 cm H(2)0 and 33.7 ± 1.82 cm H(2)O, respectively (P < 0.001). Gastric tube insertion was successful with both devices; however, the EzT allowed insertion of gastric tubes of wider diameter. No severe perioperative adverse events were recorded for either device. CONCLUSION: The EzT has distinct advantages over the ETC in airway management, including shorter time to achieve an effective airway and easier insertion.