A comparison of the Soft Seal disposable and the Classic re-usable laryngeal mask airway.
Many new supraglottic airway devices have been recently introduced, their development motivated by the need for a single-use equivalent to the original re-usable laryngeal mask airway. We performed a randomised cross-over study in spontaneously breathing patients comparing the re-usable Laryngeal Mask Airway-Classic (LMA) and the disposable Soft Seal Laryngeal Mask in sizes 3, 4 and 5. Sixty patients had an LMA and a disposable laryngeal mask placed in random order. The primary outcome was first attempt insertion success rate. Ease of insertion was similar in both groups and there was no difference in first attempt success rates (96% with LMA and 92% with disposable laryngeal mask). The disposable laryngeal mask required significantly less air to inflate the cuff to produce a seal (10 [10-25] ml with disposable laryngeal mask and 15 [10-30] ml with laryngeal mask) and the cuff pressure produced was significantly lower (35 [20-80] cmH(2)O with disposable laryngeal mask and 75 [20-120] cmH(2)O with LMA). Data are median and range. We conclude that the disposable laryngeal mask is an acceptable alternative to the re-usable LMA.
Shafik
M T
MT
Research Associates in Anaesthesia, Department of Anaesthetics, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XN, Wales, UK. magdi@janet16.fsnet.co.uk
Bahlman
B U
BU
Hall
J E
JE
Ali
M S
MS
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D000768:Anesthesia, General; D018592:Cross-Over Studies; D020878:Device Removal; D004209:Disposable Equipment; D017743:Equipment Reuse; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D017214:Laryngeal Masks; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged