eISSN: 1731-2531
ISSN: 1642-5758
Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy
Current issue Archive Manuscripts accepted About the journal Supplements Editorial board Reviewers Abstracting and indexing Subscription Contact Instructions for authors Ethical standards and procedures
SCImago Journal & Country Rank

 
3/2022
vol. 54
 
Share:
Share:
more
 
 
abstract:
Original paper

Comparison of LMA Protector vs. endotracheal tube in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: a randomised controlled trial

Mehmet Yilmaz
1
,
Ayse Z. Turan
1
,
Ayten Saracoglu
2
,
Kemal T. Saracoglu
3

1.
Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Derince Research and Education Hospital, Health Sciences University, Kocaeli, Turkey
2.
Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Marmara Universty Medical School, Istanbul, Turkey
3.
Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Kartal Dr. Lütfi Kırdar Research and Education Hospital, Health Sciences University, Istanbul, Turkey
Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther 2022; 54, 3: 247–252
Online publish date: 2022/08/19
View full text
Get citation
ENW
EndNote
BIB
JabRef, Mendeley
RIS
Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
 
Introduction
Recent advances in airway management have led to supraglottic airway devices (SAD) being increasingly often chosen instead of tracheal intubation for laparoscopic surgery. However, there are ongoing arguments regarding the use of SAD due to worries about the risks of insufficient ventilation and pulmonary aspiration. The LMA Protector is a second generation SAD which was put into use recently. This prospective randomised trial investigated whether the LMA Protector was comparable to the tracheal tube regarding respiratory parameters, perioperative complications and haemodynamic parameters in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

Material and methods
A total of 154 adult patients were randomised to two groups: Group 1 (tracheal intubation) and Group 2 (LMA Protector). Achieving adequate depth of anaesthesia, the patients were either intubated or the LMA Protector was placed. The initial baseline measurements were recorded including tidal volume, peak inspiratory pressure (PIP), oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) and haemodynamic parameters. These measurements were repeated and recorded again following pneumoperitoneum and recovery from anaesthesia.

Results
At the mean age of 52.22 ± 13.90 years 77 patients were intubated and in 77 patients the LMA Protector was applied. Following insertion of the airway device and pneumoperitoneum, the heart rate was higher in the intubation group. In the LMA Protector group OLP measures were found to be statistically similar. The mean Brimacombe fibreoptic visualisation score was 2.12 ± 0.58 and the rate of requirement of optimisation was 15% in the LMA Protector group.

Conclusions
With high OLP, better haemodynamic parameters and low laryngeal view scores, we concluded that the LMA Protector can be used safely in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

keywords:

laparoscopic surgery, anaesthesia, intubation, LMA protector

Quick links
© 2022 Termedia Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.
Developed by Bentus.