» Articles » PMID: 34979936

Preliminary Evaluation of SaCoVLM™ Video Laryngeal Mask Airway in Airway Management for General Anesthesia

Overview
Journal BMC Anesthesiol
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Anesthesiology
Date 2022 Jan 4
PMID 34979936
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: To preliminary evaluate the application of SaCoVLM™ video laryngeal mask airway in airway management of general anesthesia.

Methods: We recruited 100 adult patients (ages 18-78 years, male 19, female 81, weight 48-90 kg) with normal predicted airway (Mallampati I ~ II, unrestricted mouth opening, normal head and neck mobility) and ASA I-II who required general anaesthesia. The SaCoVLM™ was inserted after anesthesia induction and connected with the anesthesia machine for ventilation. Our primary outcome was glottic visualization grades. Secondary outcomes included seal pressure, success rate of insertion, intraoperative findings (gastric reflux and contraposition), gastric drainage and 24-h complications after operation.

Results: The laryngeal inlet was exposed in all the patients and shown on the video after SaCoVLM™ insertion. The status of glottic visualization was classified: grade 1 in 55 cases, grade 2 in 23 cases, grade 3 in 14 cases and grade 4 in 8 cases. The first-time success rate of SaCoVLM™ insertion was 95% (95% CI = 0.887 to 0.984), and the total success rate was 96% (95% CI = 0.901 to 0.989). The sealing pressure of SaCoVLM™ was 34.1 ± 6.2 cmHO and the gastric drainage were smooth. Only a small number of patients developed mild complications after SaCoVLM™ was removed (such as blood stains on SaCoVLM™ and sore throat).

Conclusions: The SaCoVLM™ can visualize partial or whole laryngeal inlets during the surgery, with a high success rate, a high sealing pressure and smooth gastroesophageal drainage. SaCoVLM™ could be a promise new effective supraglottic device to airway management during general anesthesia.

Trial Registration: ChiCTR, ChiCTR2000028802 .Registered 4 January 2020.

Citing Articles

Effect of the new non-inflatable laryngeal mask GMA-Tulip on airway management for lateral total hip arthroplasty in geriatric patients: a randomized controlled trial.

Zhang Q, Dong S, Shi C, Jin W BMC Anesthesiol. 2025; 25(1):111.

PMID: 40025428 PMC: 11871642. DOI: 10.1186/s12871-025-02985-4.


Application of placing the anterior end of endotracheal tube at the glottis in laryngeal mask airway positive ventilation during general anesthesia: A prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

Chen Z, Ma X, Mao Z, Chen L, Chen Y, Shao D Medicine (Baltimore). 2024; 103(39):e39934.

PMID: 39331888 PMC: 11441882. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000039934.


Minimal alveolar concentration of sevoflurane in combination with remimazolam in adults during laryngeal mask insertion: an up-down sequential allocation study.

Huang Y, Liao H, Li L, Xu J, Jiang P, Guo Y BMC Anesthesiol. 2024; 24(1):94.

PMID: 38454342 PMC: 10921704. DOI: 10.1186/s12871-024-02468-y.


Effect of the new video laryngeal mask airway SaCoVLM on airway management in lateral laparoscopic urological surgery: A single center randomized controlled trial.

Sun Y, Zhang M, Gao X, Gao Z, Zou T, Guo Y Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):2132.

PMID: 38272937 PMC: 10810894. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-51856-4.


Supraglottic Airway Devices with Vision Guided Systems: Third Generation of Supraglottic Airway Devices.

Castillo-Monzon C, Gaszynski T, Marroquin-Valz H, Orozco-Montes J, Ratajczyk P J Clin Med. 2023; 12(16).

PMID: 37629238 PMC: 10455808. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12165197.


References
1.
Kihara S, Brimacombe J, Yaguchi Y, Taguchi N, Watanabe S . A comparison of sex- and weight-based ProSeal laryngeal mask size selection criteria: a randomized study of healthy anesthetized, paralyzed adult patients. Anesthesiology. 2004; 101(2):340-3. DOI: 10.1097/00000542-200408000-00014. View

2.
Komur E, Bakan N, Tomruk S, Karaoren G, Dogan Z . 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 Anaesthesiol Reanim. 2016; 43(6):406-11. PMC: 4894184. DOI: 10.5152/TJAR.2015.97830. View

3.
Chaw S, Shariffuddin I, Foo L, Lee P, Paran R, Cheang P . Comparison of clinical performance of size 1.5 Supreme™ LMA and Proseal™ LMA among Asian children: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Monit Comput. 2018; 32(6):1093-1099. DOI: 10.1007/s10877-018-0109-4. View

4.
Shariffuddin I, Teoh W, Tang E, Hashim N, Loh P . Ambu® AuraGain™ versus LMA Supreme™ Second Seal™: a randomised controlled trial comparing oropharyngeal leak pressures and gastric drain functionality in spontaneously breathing patients. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2017; 45(2):244-250. DOI: 10.1177/0310057X1704500215. View

5.
Somri M, Vaida S, Garcia Fornari G, Mendoza G, Charco-Mora P, Hawash N . 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 Anesthesiol. 2016; 16(1):87. PMC: 5054611. DOI: 10.1186/s12871-016-0237-7. View