Search

Background: Gastric tube insertion, either orally or nasally, is daily practice in anesthesia and intensive care. "Blind" insertion represents the common conventional method and is associated with low first-pass success and frequent complications. This trial aimed to evaluate the novel gastric tube guide as a rigid conduit in regard to insertion success rate, time required and associated complications versus the conventional "blind" insertion method. We hypothesized that the insertion success rate is higher using the Orogastric tube guide., Methods: This trial was approved by ethics committee prior to patient recruitment. In a randomized order, anesthetists performed oral insertion of a gastric tube either with the Orogastric tube guide (GTG) or by conventional "blind" technique (CONV) in elective surgical patients. Exclusion criteria were defined as age under 18 years, pregnancy, emergency surgery and patients without indication for tracheal intubation and gastric tube insertion., Results: We examined 151 patients (GTG, N.=71; CONV, N.=80). The success rate was higher with the GTG compared to the conventional method (69/71 (97%) vs. 61/80 (76%); P<0.001). The median insertion time was 25 s (IQR 20-39) using the GTG and 31 s (IQR 24-58; P=0.027) with the conventional method. We found no differences with regard to complications between the groups (P=0.54)., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the use of the GTG facilitates and fastens orogastric tube placement in anesthetized patients and thereby constitutes a benefit in clinical routine.

Background: Second-generation laryngeal masks with gastric access are increasingly used in daily practice and expand the indications for laryngeal masks in the OR. Only limited data exist comparing different types of laryngeal masks. We investigated the second-generation laryngeal masks LMA Supreme™ and Ambu® AuraGain™ in a clinical setting. We hypothesized that the two devices would be comparable in terms of success rate and airway complications., Methods: After approval from the local ethics committee, data were collected in a prospective trial. Endpoints were success rate, time to insertion and airway morbidity. Anesthesiologists used either the Supreme (Teleflex Medical GmbH) or Gain (Ambu GmbH) laryngeal mask. Patients <18 years and those with a possible risk of regurgitation were excluded., Results: Data from 351 adult patients were documented (Supreme N.=177; Gain N.=174). Success rate for first attempt was 80% (Supreme) and 72% (Gain; P=0.08). Overall success rate was 89% and 92%, respectively (P=0.38). Providers with minimal experience were more successful at first attempt using Supreme (95%), compared to Gain (67%; P=0.01). The median insertion time was shorter in Supreme at 18 s [interquartile range (IQR), 14-25 s] compared to 30 s for Gain [18-41s] (P<0.0001). A higher incidence of airway complications was observed after device removal for Gain (P=0.009)., Conclusions: Supreme was superior to Gain in terms of insertion time and airway morbidity. Novices were more successful at first attempt using Supreme. These differences between supraglottic airway devices might be due to the different shapes and materials of the masks.