Search

Background The laryngeal mask airway (LMAⓇ) ProtectorTM (Teleflex Medical Co., Ireland) is the latest innovation in the second generation of LMA devices. One distinguishing feature of this device is its integrated, color-coded cuff pressure indicator (Cuff PilotTM technology) which enables continuous cuff pressure monitoring and allows adjustments when necessary; this ensures patient safety due to better monitoring. Case We report a case of postoperative unilateral hypoglossal nerve palsy after uncomplicated use of the LMA Protector. To the best of our knowledge, this could be the second reported case. Conclusions This case demonstrates that anesthetists need to routinely measure cuff pressure and that the Cuff PilotTM technology is not a panacea for potential cranial nerve injury after airway manipulation.

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to compare the streamlined liner of the pharynx airway (SLIPA) with the classic laryngeal mask airway when used by novice personnel.MethodsThere were 114 patients enrolled into this study who underwent general anesthesia were randomly allocated into one of 2 groups; LMA group (n = 57) or SLIPA group (n = 57). After insertion, insertion success rate, insertion time, and hemodynamic responses to insertion were accessed. After surgery, postoperative airway morbidity (sore throat, dysphonia, dysphagia) were evaluated.ResultsThe SLIPA was successfully inserted in 96% of patients (55/57) and the LMA in 93% (53/57) (P = 0.408). First attempt success rates were 88% (44/57) and 77% (50/57) in the SLIPA and the LMA (P = 0.142). The successful insertion time in SLIPA group (33.4 ± 11.0 sec) was significantly shorter than that of LMA group (38.8 ± 16.6 sec) (P = 0.048) and the insertion time at the first attempt was also shorter in SLIPA group (31.0 ± 6.3 sec) than LMA group (34.7 ± 8.6 sec) (P = 0.013). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in hemodynamic responses and postoperative airway morbidity.ConclusionsThe SLIPA was similar to the LMA in insertion success rate, hemodynamic response, and postoperative airway morbidity by novice personnel. The insertion time at the first attempt and successful insertion time of the SLIPA were significantly shorter than those of the LMA. Therefore, the SLIPA could be a useful alternative to the LMA as primary SGA for novice personnel.

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the streamlined liner of the pharynx airway (SLIPA) with the classic laryngeal mask airway when used by novice personnel. Methods: There were 114 patients enrolled into this study who underwent general anesthesia were randomly allocated into one of 2 groups; LMA group (n = 57) or SLIPA group (n = 57). After insertion, insertion success rate, insertion time, and hemodynamic responses to insertion were accessed. After surgery, postoperative airway morbidity (sore throat, dysphonia, dysphagia) were evaluated. Results: The SLIPA was successfully inserted in 96% of patients (55/57) and the LMA in 93% (53/57) (P = 0.408). First attempt success rates were 88% (44/57) and 77% (50/57) in the SLIPA and the LMA (P = 0.142). The successful insertion time in SLIPA group (33.4 ± 11.0 sec) was significantly shorter than that of LMA group (38.8 ± 16.6 sec) (P = 0.048) and the insertion time at the first attempt was also shorter in SLIPA group (31.0 ± 6.3 sec) than LMA group (34.7 ± 8.6 sec) (P = 0.013). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in hemodynamic responses and postoperative airway morbidity. Conclusions: The SLIPA was similar to the LMA in insertion success rate, hemodynamic response, and postoperative airway morbidity by novice personnel. The insertion time at the first attempt and successful insertion time of the SLIPA were significantly shorter than those of the LMA. Therefore, the SLIPA could be a useful alternative to the LMA as primary SGA for novice personnel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]