Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2006 Oct-Dec;18(5-6):478-83.
doi: 10.1111/j.1742-6723.2006.00894.x.

Randomized comparison of the SLIPA (Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway) and the SS-LM (Soft Seal Laryngeal Mask) by medical students

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Randomized comparison of the SLIPA (Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway) and the SS-LM (Soft Seal Laryngeal Mask) by medical students

Cindy Hein et al. Emerg Med Australas. 2006 Oct-Dec.

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the study was to compare the Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway (SLIPA; Hudson RCI), a new supraglottic airway device, with the Soft Seal Laryngeal Mask (SS-LM; Portex) when used by novices.

Methods: Thirty-six medical students with no previous airway experience, received manikin training in the use of the SLIPA and the SS-LM. Once proficient, the students inserted each device in randomized sequence, in two separate patients in the operating theatre. Only two insertion attempts per patient were allowed. Students were assessed in terms of: device preference; success or failure; success at first attempt and time to ventilation.

Results: Sixty-seven per cent of the students preferred to use the SLIPA (95% confidence interval 49-81%). The SLIPA was successfully inserted (one or two attempts) in 94% of patients (34/36) and the SS-LM in 89% (32/36) (P = 0.39). First attempt success rates were 83% (30/36) and 67% (24/36) in the SLIPA and SS-LM, respectively (P = 0.10). Median time to ventilation was shorter with the SLIPA (40.6 s) than with the SS-LM (66.9 s) when it was the first device used (P = 0.004), but times were similar when inserting the second device (43.8 s vs 42.9 s) (P = 0.75).

Conclusions: In the present study novice users demonstrated high success rates with both devices. The SLIPA group achieved shorter times to ventilation when it was the first device they inserted, which might prove to be of clinical significance, particularly in resuscitation attempts. Although the Laryngeal Mask has gained wide recognition for use by both novice users and as a rescue airway in failed intubation, the data presented here suggest that the SLIPA might also prove useful in these areas.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources