Search

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.

Purpose: It is generally accepted that using a video laryngoscope is associated with an improved visualization of the glottis. However, correctly placing the endotracheal tube might be challenging. Channeled video laryngoscopic blades have an endotracheal tube already pre-loaded, allowing to advance the tube once the glottis is visualized. We hypothesized that use of a channel blade with pre-loaded endotracheal tube results in a faster intubation, compared to a curved Macintosh blade video laryngoscope. Methods: After ethical approval and informed consent, patients were randomized to receive endotracheal Intubation with either the King Vision® video laryngoscope with curved blade (control) or channeled blade (channeled). Success rate, evaluation of the glottis view (percentage of glottic opening (POGO), Cormack&Lehane (C&L)) and intubating time were evaluated. Results: Over a two-month period, a total of 46 patients (control n = 23; channeled n = 23) were examined. The first attempt success rates were comparable between groups (control 100% (23/23) vs. channeled 96% (22/23); p = 0.31). Overall intubation time was significantly shorter with control (median 40 sec; IQR [24–58]), compared to channeled (59 sec [40–74]; p = 0.03). There were no differences in glottis visualization between groups. Conclusion: Compared with the King Vision channeled blade, time for tracheal intubation was shorter with the control group using a non-channeled blade. First attempt success and visualization of the glottis were comparable. These data do not support the hypothesis that a channeled blade is superior to a curved video laryngoscopic blade without tube guidance. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]