Premium
Randomised, crossover comparison of the single‐use SoftSeal ™ and the LMA Unique ™ laryngeal mask airways
Author(s) -
Paech M. J.,
Tweedie O.,
Stannard K.,
Hepp M.,
Dodd P.,
Daly H.,
Bennett E.J.,
Millard A.,
Doherty D. A.
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
anaesthesia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.839
H-Index - 117
eISSN - 1365-2044
pISSN - 0003-2409
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2005.04122.x
Subject(s) - medicine , laryngeal mask airway , larynx , laryngeal masks , anesthesia , crossover study , airway , cuff , mascara , airway management , peak inspiratory pressure , ventilation (architecture) , surgery , respiratory system , tidal volume , mechanical engineering , alternative medicine , engineering , placebo , pathology
Summary We performed a randomised, crossover, single‐blind trial among 168 patients, to compare the single‐use SoftSeal ™ and LMA Unique ™ laryngeal mask airways in spontaneously breathing adults. Size‐3 and ‐4 laryngeal mask airways, inserted by experienced anaesthetists, performed equivalently for successful first‐time placement (148 (91%) vs 155 (96%) for the SoftSeal ™ and LMA Unique ™ , respectively). The SoftSeal ™ was more often rated as difficult to insert (27 (17%) vs 4 (3%); p < 0.001) and was more likely to show evidence of mucosal trauma after the first insertion (14 (10%) vs 5 (4%); OR 1.3 (95% CI 1.3–11.3); p < 0.05). The fibreoptic view of the larynx was better through the SoftSeal ™ (vocal cords not visible in 27 (17%) vs 44 (27%); p < 0.05) and it more frequently provided a ventilation seal at 20 cmH 2 O (93 (59%) vs 62 (39%); OR 2.15 (CI 1.44–3.21); p < 0.001). In contrast to the LMA Unique ™ , its cuff pressure did not increase during nitrous oxide anaesthesia (median (IQR [range]) decrease 3 (− 20–23 [‐40–94]) cmH 2 O vs increase of 16 (−2–39 [−54–112]) cmH 2 O; p < 0.01). Both devices were equivalent for the success of first‐time insertion and performed satisfactorily clinically. There were some performance differences, but either appears suitable for airway management in spontaneously breathing patients.