ProSeal versus Classic laryngeal mask airway (LMA) for positive pressure ventilation in adults undergoing elective surgery

Abstract

ProSeal versus Classic laryngeal mask airway (LMA) for positive pressure ventilation in adults undergoing elective surgery.

The LMA ® Protector TM in anaesthetised, non‐paralysed patients: a multicentre prospective observational study

“…However, our data are in line with those reported for the LMA Protector in previous studies . The OLP of the LMA Protector was comparable to or even higher than that described for the ProSeal and the Ambu AuraGain, and superior to that of the i‐gel and the LMA Supreme; this finding may be related to the cuff material and design of the LMA Protector .…”

“…The overall success rate of the LMA Protector found in our present study (98%) is comparable to other second‐generation SADs such as the LMA ProSeal TM (91–100%), the LMA Supreme TM (92–100%) and the Ambu AuraGain (92–100%), but inferior to the Classic TM LMA (99.8–100%) . The learning curve with the LMA Protector is probably steeper than that of first‐generation SADs and similar to that of second‐generation SADs, which may justify the fact that 56% of our patients required manoeuvres to facilitate insertion . However, our data are in line with those reported for the LMA Protector in previous studies .…”

The LMA ® Protector TM in anaesthetised, non‐paralysed patients: a multicentre prospective observational study

“…However, our data are in line with those reported for the LMA Protector in previous studies . The OLP of the LMA Protector was comparable to or even higher than that described for the ProSeal and the Ambu AuraGain, and superior to that of the i‐gel and the LMA Supreme; this finding may be related to the cuff material and design of the LMA Protector .…”

“…The overall success rate of the LMA Protector found in our present study (98%) is comparable to other second‐generation SADs such as the LMA ProSeal TM (91–100%), the LMA Supreme TM (92–100%) and the Ambu AuraGain (92–100%), but inferior to the Classic TM LMA (99.8–100%) . The learning curve with the LMA Protector is probably steeper than that of first‐generation SADs and similar to that of second‐generation SADs, which may justify the fact that 56% of our patients required manoeuvres to facilitate insertion . However, our data are in line with those reported for the LMA Protector in previous studies .…”

Can Laryngeal Mask Airway be the First Choice for Tracheal Stenosis Surgery? A Historical Cohort Study

“…Previous studies compared oxygenation/ventilation methods for tracheal reconstruction surgery and found that the use of LMA was inferior to orotracheal intubation in terms of oxygenation/ventilation. [ 17 , 18 ] In our study, oxygenation was better in the OTI group throughout the surgery, but there were no significant differences in the arterial oxygen pressure values between the groups, both preoperatively and postoperatively. Adequate ventilation was also verified using arterial carbon dioxide pressure values, which were comparable between the groups, both preoperatively and postoperatively.…”

Airway Management in Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery: A Narrative Review of Current Techniques and Considerations

“…Laryngeal mask airways (LMAs) offer significant advantages in ENT procedures through the elimination of neuromuscular blockade requirements and the provision of smooth emergence characteristics, with minimal hemodynamic response to insertion and removal [ 5 , 29 ]. The device can remain in situ until patients recover normal protective reflexes, allowing management in recovery areas with reduced airway irritation compared to endotracheal tubes.…”

The LMA ® Protector TM in anaesthetised, non‐paralysed patients: a multicentre prospective observational study

“…However, our data are in line with those reported for the LMA Protector in previous studies . The OLP of the LMA Protector was comparable to or even higher than that described for the ProSeal and the Ambu AuraGain, and superior to that of the i‐gel and the LMA Supreme; this finding may be related to the cuff material and design of the LMA Protector .…”

“…The overall success rate of the LMA Protector found in our present study (98%) is comparable to other second‐generation SADs such as the LMA ProSeal TM (91–100%), the LMA Supreme TM (92–100%) and the Ambu AuraGain (92–100%), but inferior to the Classic TM LMA (99.8–100%) . The learning curve with the LMA Protector is probably steeper than that of first‐generation SADs and similar to that of second‐generation SADs, which may justify the fact that 56% of our patients required manoeuvres to facilitate insertion . However, our data are in line with those reported for the LMA Protector in previous studies .…”

Can Laryngeal Mask Airway be the First Choice for Tracheal Stenosis Surgery? A Historical Cohort Study

“…Previous studies compared oxygenation/ventilation methods for tracheal reconstruction surgery and found that the use of LMA was inferior to orotracheal intubation in terms of oxygenation/ventilation. [ 17 , 18 ] In our study, oxygenation was better in the OTI group throughout the surgery, but there were no significant differences in the arterial oxygen pressure values between the groups, both preoperatively and postoperatively. Adequate ventilation was also verified using arterial carbon dioxide pressure values, which were comparable between the groups, both preoperatively and postoperatively.…”

Airway Management in Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery: A Narrative Review of Current Techniques and Considerations

“…Laryngeal mask airways (LMAs) offer significant advantages in ENT procedures through the elimination of neuromuscular blockade requirements and the provision of smooth emergence characteristics, with minimal hemodynamic response to insertion and removal [ 5 , 29 ]. The device can remain in situ until patients recover normal protective reflexes, allowing management in recovery areas with reduced airway irritation compared to endotracheal tubes.…”

The LMA ® Protector TM in anaesthetised, non‐paralysed patients: a multicentre prospective observational study

“…However, our data are in line with those reported for the LMA Protector in previous studies . The OLP of the LMA Protector was comparable to or even higher than that described for the ProSeal and the Ambu AuraGain, and superior to that of the i‐gel and the LMA Supreme; this finding may be related to the cuff material and design of the LMA Protector .…”

“…The overall success rate of the LMA Protector found in our present study (98%) is comparable to other second‐generation SADs such as the LMA ProSeal TM (91–100%), the LMA Supreme TM (92–100%) and the Ambu AuraGain (92–100%), but inferior to the Classic TM LMA (99.8–100%) . The learning curve with the LMA Protector is probably steeper than that of first‐generation SADs and similar to that of second‐generation SADs, which may justify the fact that 56% of our patients required manoeuvres to facilitate insertion . However, our data are in line with those reported for the LMA Protector in previous studies .…”

Can Laryngeal Mask Airway be the First Choice for Tracheal Stenosis Surgery? A Historical Cohort Study

“…Previous studies compared oxygenation/ventilation methods for tracheal reconstruction surgery and found that the use of LMA was inferior to orotracheal intubation in terms of oxygenation/ventilation. [ 17 , 18 ] In our study, oxygenation was better in the OTI group throughout the surgery, but there were no significant differences in the arterial oxygen pressure values between the groups, both preoperatively and postoperatively. Adequate ventilation was also verified using arterial carbon dioxide pressure values, which were comparable between the groups, both preoperatively and postoperatively.…”

Airway Management in Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery: A Narrative Review of Current Techniques and Considerations

“…Laryngeal mask airways (LMAs) offer significant advantages in ENT procedures through the elimination of neuromuscular blockade requirements and the provision of smooth emergence characteristics, with minimal hemodynamic response to insertion and removal [ 5 , 29 ]. The device can remain in situ until patients recover normal protective reflexes, allowing management in recovery areas with reduced airway irritation compared to endotracheal tubes.…”