» Articles » PMID: 11818758

A Multicenter Study Comparing the ProSeal and Classic Laryngeal Mask Airway in Anesthetized, Nonparalyzed Patients

Overview
Journal Anesthesiology
Specialty Anesthesiology
Date 2002 Jan 31
PMID 11818758
Citations 50
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The laryngeal mask airway ProSeal (PLMA), a new laryngeal mask device, was compared with the laryngeal mask airway Classic (LMA) with respect to: (1) insertion success rates and times; (2) efficacy of seal; (3) fiberoptically determined anatomic position; (4) orogastric tube insertion success rates and times; (5) total intraoperative complications; and (6) postoperative sore throat in nonparalyzed adult patients undergoing general anesthesia, hypothesizing that these would be different.

Methods: Three hundred eighty-four nonparalyzed anesthetized adult patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II) were randomly allocated to the PLMA or LMA for airway management. In addition, 50% of patients were randomized for orogastric tube placement. Unblinded observers collected intraoperative data, and blinded observers collected postoperative data.

Results: First-attempt insertion success rates (91 vs. 82%, P = 0.015) were higher for the LMA, but after three attempts success rates were similar (LMA, 100%; PLMA, 98%). Less time was required to achieve an effective airway with the LMA (31 +/- 30 vs. 41 +/- 49 s; P = 0.02). The PLMA formed a more effective seal (27 +/- 7 vs. 22 +/- 6 cm H2O; P < 0.0001). Fiberoptically determined anatomic position was better with the LMA (P < 0.0001). Orogastric tube insertion was more successful after two attempts (88 vs. 55%; P < 0.0001) and quicker (22 +/- 18 vs. 38 +/- 56 s) with the PLMA. During maintenance, the PLMA failed twice (leak, stridor) and the LMA failed once (laryngospasm). Total intraoperative complications were similar for both groups. The incidence of postoperative sore throat was similar.

Conclusion: In anesthetized, nonparalyzed patients, the LMA is easier and quicker to insert, but the PLMA forms a better seal and facilitates easier and quicker orogastric tube placement. The incidence of total intraoperative complications and postoperative sore throat are similar.

Citing Articles

How does head position affect laryngeal vision with a video laryngeal mask airway?.

Castillo-Monzon C, Marroquin-Valz H, Gaszynski T, Cayuela M, Orozco J, Ratajczyk P Front Med (Lausanne). 2025; 11:1469225.

PMID: 39741507 PMC: 11686431. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1469225.


Choice of supraglottic airway devices: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Kanakaraj M, Bhat A, Singh N, Balasubramanian S, Tyagi A, Aathreya R Br J Anaesth. 2024; 133(6):1284-1306.

PMID: 39406569 PMC: 11589487. DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2024.09.001.


Comparison of the effects of paratracheal pressure and cricoid pressure on placement of the i-gel supraglottic airway: a randomized clinical trial.

Won D, Kim H, Chang J, Lee J, Kim T, Kim H Can J Anaesth. 2024; 71(7):996-1003.

PMID: 38507025 PMC: 11266228. DOI: 10.1007/s12630-024-02741-1.


A comparison of the time course of action and laryngeal mask airway insertion conditions with different doses of mivacurium for day-case urologic surgery in children: a prospective cohort study.

Ye H, Nian C, Zhou L, Xie Y, Li F, Xue T Front Pediatr. 2024; 12:1330737.

PMID: 38468874 PMC: 10925757. DOI: 10.3389/fped.2024.1330737.


Usefulness of bougie-preloaded proseal laryngeal mask airway versus digital insertion technique in correct placement of the device.

Mathew J, Rajan S, Babu K, Manoharan K, Paul J, Kumar L J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2024; 39(4):565-570.

PMID: 38269150 PMC: 10805196. DOI: 10.4103/joacp.joacp_72_22.