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 Publication charge Ethical standards and procedures
Editorial System
Submit your Manuscript
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
5/2019
vol. 51
 
Share:
Share:
abstract:
Original paper

Performance of first and second generation supraglottic airway devices in patients with simulated difficult airway: a randomised controlled trial

Ergul Yildiz
1
,
Kemal Tolga Saracoglu
1
,
Ayten Saracoglu
1
,
Massimiliano Sorbello
2
,
Deniz Kizilay
1
,
Haluk Kafali
1

1.
Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Istanbul Bilim University, Turkey
2.
Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, AOU Policlinico Vittorio Emanuele Catania, Italy
Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther 2019; 51, 5: 373–379
Online publish date: 2019/12/27
View full text Get citation
 
PlumX metrics:
Background
Guidelines for management of unanticipated difficult intubation recommend the use of supraglottic airway devices (SADs) in cases of failed intubation. How­ever, there is a lack of comparative studies for different type of devices. In this randomised controlled trial, the performance of 1st and 2nd generation supraglottic airway devices was compared in patients with a simulated difficult airway.

Material and methods
We enrolled 90 patients, scheduled for elective surgery and suitable for supraglottic airway device insertion. Laryngeal mask airway (LMA)-classic (LMAC), LMA-proseal (LMAP) and LMA-flexible (LMAF) were evaluated. The modified Mallampati test was used for the preoperative airway assessment. Maximal mouth opening, body mass index, thyromental and sternomental distances, and neck circumference were measured, and patients with predicted difficulty were excluded. Insertion time, ease of insertion, oropharyngeal leak pressure, and Brimacombe and Berry Bronchoscopy Scores were evaluated. Peak airway pressure was measured at 1, 15 and 60 min following the insertion of SADs. Complications were recorded.

Results
Oropharyngeal leak pressures were 35.2 ± 8.1, 31.7 ± 7.7 and 31.3 ± 6.0 mm Hg for LMAP, LMAC and LMAF respectively (P = 0.079). First min peak airway pressure values were 14.0 ± 4.2, 15.0 ± 3.9, 14.9 ± 4.4 mm Hg respectively (P = 0.403). There was a significant positive correlation between oropharyngeal leak pressure and first min peak airway pressure (r = 0.264, P = 0.013). Mean number of attempts was 1.1 ± 0.3 times (P = 0.840). Insertion time was 20.0 ± 10.4, 17.0 ± 5.7 and 16.4 ± 10.2 s respectively (P = 0.440). Ease of insertion score was 2.0 ± 0.9, 2.1 ± 0.9 and 2.1 ± 1.3 respectively (P = 0.837). There was no significant difference for optimization manoeuvre requirement or fibreoptic scope grades (P = 0.265, P = 0.651, respectively).

Conclusions
First and second generation of supraglottic airway devices provided similar clinical performance for patients with difficult airway and trauma due to limited cervical motion.

keywords:

difficult airway, cervical collar, supraglottic airway devices

Quick links
© 2024 Termedia Sp. z o.o.
Developed by Bentus.