Comparison of LMA-SUPREME, i-gel and LTS-D during orbital fractures reconstruction

Kostetskiy I.V.; Shamrikov A.A.; Bagin V.A.; Kaliskin A.A.

doi:https://doi.org/10.17116/anaesthesiology201804157

Kostetskiy I.V.

City Clinical Hospital №23, 620017, Yekaterinburg, Russia

Shamrikov A.A.

City Clinical Hospital №23, 620017, Yekaterinburg, Russia

Bagin V.A.

City Clinical Hospital №40, Yekaterinburg, Russia

Kaliskin A.A.

City Clinical Hospital №23, 620017, Yekaterinburg, Russia

Comparison of LMA-SUPREME, i-gel and LTS-D during orbital fractures reconstruction

Authors:

Kostetskiy I.V., Shamrikov A.A., Bagin V.A., Kaliskin A.A.

More about the authors

Journal: Russian Journal of Anesthesiology and Reanimatology. 2018;(4): 57‑63

DOI: 10.17116/anaesthesiology201804157

Read: 3142 times

Download PDF (RU)

Contact the author

Table of contents

To cite this article:

Kostetskiy IV, Shamrikov AA, Bagin VA, Kaliskin AA. Comparison of LMA-SUPREME, i-gel and LTS-D during orbital fractures reconstruction. Russian Journal of Anesthesiology and Reanimatology. 2018;(4):57‑63. (In Russ.)
https://doi.org/10.17116/anaesthesiology201804157

Использование инфографики авторами научных работ

Close metadata

Abstract:

Purpose. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of supraglottic airway devices (SADs) LMA-Supreme, i-gel and LTS-D during orbital fractures reconstruction and choose the optimal device. Material and methods. In total 51 patients were enrolled in the study: 15 patients in LMA-Supreme, 21 patients in i-gel group and 15 patients in LTS-D group. Hemodynamic parameters, artificial ventilation and respiratory parameters, oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP), insertion time, number of insertion attempts, use of airway maneuvers were measured and recorded. We also compared the incidence of airway trauma and its complications. Results. Hemodynamic parameters, artificial ventilation and respiratory parameters mostly had no differences between groups. Oropharyngeal leak pressure also was comparable (Me, mm H2O (Q1; Q3)) 24 (20; 28), 23 (19; 28), 23 (20; 28) (p=0.914) after insertion and 26 (22; 29), 23 (20; 31) and 25 (19; 31 in the end of operation (p=0.965), in group LMA-Supreme, i-gel and LTS-D respectively. There were significant differences between the groups in insertion time (Me, sec. (Q1; Q3), 28 (20; 36) for LMA-Supreme, 20 (12; 28) for i-gel and 43 (38; 52) for LTS-D (p<0.001) and in the number of airway maneuvers (n(%) 8 (38.1) for I-GEL, 11 (73.3) for LMA-Supreme and 12 (80,0) for LTS-D (p=0.019). The incidence of airway trauma and its complications had no significant differences between the groups. Conclusions. All devices were similarly successful and suitable for ventilating the patients’ lungs during orbital fractures reconstruction, but the LTS-D had longer insertion time and needed more airway maneuvers for insertion compared to i-gel and LMA-Supreme.

Keywords:

Laryngeal mask airway

leak pressure

Laryngeal Tube

supraglottic airway device

airway management

i-gel

Laryngeal Tube Suction-D

LMA-Supreme

Authors:

Kostetskiy I.V.

City Clinical Hospital №23, 620017, Yekaterinburg, Russia

Shamrikov A.A.

City Clinical Hospital №23, 620017, Yekaterinburg, Russia

Bagin V.A.

City Clinical Hospital №40, Yekaterinburg, Russia

Kaliskin A.A.

City Clinical Hospital №23, 620017, Yekaterinburg, Russia

Close metadata

References:

Frerk C, Mitchell VS, McNarry AF, Mendonca C, Bhagrath R, Patel A. Difficult Airway Society 2015 guidelines for management of unanticipated difficult intubation in adults. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2015;115(6):827-848. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aev371
American Society of Anesthesiologists: Practice Guidelines for Management of the Difficult Airway. Anesthesiology. 2013;118:251-270.
Gahan K, Studnek JR, Vandeventer S. King LT-D use by urban basic life support first responders as the primary airway device for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2011;82:1525-1528.
Hubble MW, Wilfong DA, Brown LH, Hertelendy A, Benner RW. A metaanalysis of prehospital airway control techniques, part II: alternative airway devices and cricothyrotomy success rates. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2010;14:515-530. https://doi.org/10.3109/10903127.2010.497903
Andreenko AA, Grachev IN, Faizov II. Sravnitelnaya ocenka primeneniya intubiruyushchih nadgortannyh vozduhovodov LMA FASTRACH i ILTS-D v usloviyah normalnyh i simulirovannyh trudnyh dyhatelnyh putej issledovanie na manekene. Vestnik intensivnoj therapii. 2017;1:12-18. (In Russ.)
Schalk R, Byhahn C, Fausel F, Egner A, Oberndörfer D, Walcher F, Latasch L. Out-of-hospital airway management by paramedics and emergency physicians using laryngeal tubes. Resuscitation. 2010;81:323-326.
Lim Y, Goel S, Brimacombe JR. The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway is an effective alternative to laryngoscope-guided tracheal intubation for gynaecological laparoscopy. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2007;35(1):52-56.
Van Zundert TC, Brimacombe JR. Similar oropharyngeal leak pressures during anaesthesia with i-gel, LMA-ProSeal and LMA-Supreme Laryngeal Masks. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg. 2012;63(1):35-41.
Das B, Varshney R, Mitra S. A randomised controlled trial comparing ProSeal laryngeal mask airway, i-gel and Laryngeal Tube Suction-D under general anaesthesia for elective surgical patients requiring controlled ventilation. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia. 2017;61(12):32-37.
Somri M, Vaida S, Fornari GG, Mendoza GR, Charco-Mora P, Hawash N, Matter I, Swaid F, Gaitini L. A randomized prospective controlled trial comparing the laryngeal tube suction disposable and the supreme laryngeal mask airway: the influence of head and neck position on oropharyngeal seal pressure. BMC Anesthesiology. 2016;6:87.
Chen X, Jiao J, Cong X, Liu L, Wu X. A comparison of the performance of the i-gel TM vs. the LMA-STM during anesthesia: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One. 2013;8(8):e71910.
Liew GHC, Yu ED, Shah SS, Kothandan H. Comparison of the clinical performance of i-gel, LMA Supreme and LMA ProSeal in elective surgery. Singapore Med J. 2016;57(8):432-437. https://doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2016133
Maitra S, Khanna P, Baidya DK. Comparison of laryngeal mask airway Supreme and laryngeal mask airway Pro-Seal for controlled ventilation during general anaesthesia in adult patients: systematic review with meta-analysis. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2014;31(5):266-273.
Arı DE, Ar AY, Karip CŞ, Siyahkoç İ, Arslan AH, Akgün FN. Comparison of i-gel with Classic Laryngeal Mask Airway Regarding the Ease of Use and Clinical Performance. Turk J Anaesth Reanim. 2015;43:299-303.
Kömür E, Bakan N, Tomruk ŞG, Karaören G, Doğan ZT. Comparison of the Supraglottic Airway Devices Classic, Fastrach and Supreme Laryngeal Mask Airway: A Prospective Randomised Clinical Trial of Efficacy, Safety and Complications. Turk J Anaesth Reanim. 2015;43:406-411.
Mukadder S, Zekine B, Erdogan KG, Ulku O, Muharrem U, Saim Y, Mahmut D. Comparison of the proseal, supreme, and i-gel SAD in gynecological laparoscopic surgeries. The Scientific World Journal. 2015;Article ID 634320. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/634320
Park SY, Rim JC, Kim H, Lee JH, Chung CJ. Comparison of i-gel and LMA Supreme during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology. 2015;68(5):455-461. https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2015.68.5.455
Russo SG, Cremer S, Galli T, Eich C, Bräuer A, Crozier TA, Bauer M, Strack M. Randomized comparison of the i-gel, the LMA Supreme, and the Laryngeal Tube Suction-D using clinical and fibreoptic assessments in elective patients. BMC Anesthesiology. 2012;12:18.
Likhvantsev VV, Bolshedvorov RV. Optimization of initial anesthesia in a one-day surgical hospital. General Reanimatology. 2010;6(1):44-48. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15360/1813-9779-2010-1-44
Mironov PI, Estekhin AM, Mirasov AA. Anaesthetic maintenance with laryngeal mask for a laparoscopic surgery in pediatric patients. Anesteziologiia i reanimatologiia. 2013;1:10-13. (In Russ.)
Dolbneva EL, Stamov VI, Gavrilov SV, Mizikov VM. Intubating laryngeal mask efficacy in obese and overweight patients. Anesteziologiia i reanimatologiia. 2013;2:58-62. (In Russ.)