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
. 2018 Dec;32(6):1093-1099.
doi: 10.1007/s10877-018-0109-4. Epub 2018 Feb 5.

Comparison of clinical performance of size 1.5 Supreme™ LMA and Proseal™ LMA among Asian children: a randomized controlled trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Comparison of clinical performance of size 1.5 Supreme™ LMA and Proseal™ LMA among Asian children: a randomized controlled trial

Sook Hui Chaw et al. J Clin Monit Comput. 2018 Dec.

Abstract

To date, most of the studies on safety and efficacy of supraglottic airway devices were done in Caucasian patients, and the results may not be extrapolated to Asian patients due to the different airway anatomy. We conducted this study to compare Supreme™ LMA (SLMA) and Proseal™ LMA (PLMA) size 1.5 in anaesthetized children among an Asian population. This prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted in a tertiary teaching hospital from September 2013 until May 2016. Sixty children, weighing 5-10 kg, who were scheduled for elective surgery under general anaesthesia were recruited and completed the study. Patients were randomly assigned to have either SLMA or PLMA as the airway device for general anaesthesia, and standard anaesthesia protocol was followed. The primary outcome measured was the oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP). The rate of successful insertion, insertion time, fibreoptic view of larynx and airway complications for each device were also assessed. There were no statistically significant differences between SLMA and PLMA size 1.5 in oropharyngeal leak pressure [19.1 (± 5.5) cmH2O vs. 19.8 (± 4.5) cmH2O, p = 0.68]. Secondary outcomes including time to insertion [20.8 (± 8.3) vs. 22.1 (± 8.3) s, p = 0.57], first attempt success rate for device insertion, fibreoptic view of larynx, and airway complications were also comparable between the two devices. We found that all the patients who had a failed device insertion (either PLMA or SLMA) were of a smaller size (5-6.2 kg). The oropharyngeal leak pressure of the SLMA 1.5 was comparable with the PLMA 1.5, and both devices were able to maintain an airway effectively without significant clinical complications in anaesthetized children from an Asian population.

Keywords: Laryngeal mask airway; Paediatric airway management; Paediatric anaesthesia; Supraglottic airway device.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2015 Dec;28(6):717-26 - PubMed
    1. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2009 Aug;53(7):852-7 - PubMed
    1. Paediatr Anaesth. 2013 Feb;23(2):127-33 - PubMed
    1. J Med Assoc Thai. 2016 Jul;99(7):811-5 - PubMed
    1. Paediatr Anaesth. 2013 Oct;23(10):927-33 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources