A randomised comparison of the self-pressurised air-Q TM intubating laryngeal airway with the LMA Unique TM in children

Narasimhan Jagannathan*, Lisa Sohn, Amod Sawardekar, Ravi Dipak Shah, K. Ryan, R. Jagannathan, K. Anderson

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We conducted a randomised trial comparing the self-pressurised air-Q TM intubating laryngeal airway (air-Q SP) with the LMA-Unique in 60 children undergoing surgery. Outcomes measured were airway leak pressure, ease and time for insertion, fibreoptic examination, incidence of gastric insufflation and complications. Median (IQR [range]) time to successful device placement was faster with the air-Q SP (12 (10-15 [5-18])) s than with the LMA-Unique (14 (12-17 [6-22]) s; p = 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the air-Q SP and LMA-Unique in initial airway leak pressures (16 (14-18 [10-29]) compared with 18 (15-20 [10-30]) cmH 2O, p = 0.12), an airway leak pressures at 10 min (19 (16-22 [12-30]) compared with 20 (16-22 [10-30]) cmH 2O, p = 0.81); fibreoptic position, incidence of gastric insufflation, or complications. Both devices provided effective ventilation without the need for airway manipulation. The air-Q SP is an alternative to the LMA-Unique should the clinician prefer a device not requiring cuff monitoring during anaesthesia.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)973-979
Number of pages7
JournalAnaesthesia
Volume67
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2012

Fingerprint

Compressed Air
Air
Insufflation
Pressure
Equipment and Supplies
Stomach
Incidence
Ventilation
Anesthesia

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

@article{2f4f8dbdc5e848d091fdbcca9da46cbb,
title = "A randomised comparison of the self-pressurised air-Q TM intubating laryngeal airway with the LMA Unique TM in children",
abstract = "We conducted a randomised trial comparing the self-pressurised air-Q TM intubating laryngeal airway (air-Q SP) with the LMA-Unique in 60 children undergoing surgery. Outcomes measured were airway leak pressure, ease and time for insertion, fibreoptic examination, incidence of gastric insufflation and complications. Median (IQR [range]) time to successful device placement was faster with the air-Q SP (12 (10-15 [5-18])) s than with the LMA-Unique (14 (12-17 [6-22]) s; p = 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the air-Q SP and LMA-Unique in initial airway leak pressures (16 (14-18 [10-29]) compared with 18 (15-20 [10-30]) cmH 2O, p = 0.12), an airway leak pressures at 10 min (19 (16-22 [12-30]) compared with 20 (16-22 [10-30]) cmH 2O, p = 0.81); fibreoptic position, incidence of gastric insufflation, or complications. Both devices provided effective ventilation without the need for airway manipulation. The air-Q SP is an alternative to the LMA-Unique should the clinician prefer a device not requiring cuff monitoring during anaesthesia.",
author = "Narasimhan Jagannathan and Lisa Sohn and Amod Sawardekar and Shah, {Ravi Dipak} and K. Ryan and R. Jagannathan and K. Anderson",
year = "2012",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1365-2044.2012.07199.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "67",
pages = "973--979",
journal = "Anaesthesia",
issn = "0003-2409",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "9",

}

A randomised comparison of the self-pressurised air-Q TM intubating laryngeal airway with the LMA Unique TM in children. / Jagannathan, Narasimhan; Sohn, Lisa; Sawardekar, Amod; Shah, Ravi Dipak; Ryan, K.; Jagannathan, R.; Anderson, K.

In: Anaesthesia, Vol. 67, No. 9, 01.09.2012, p. 973-979.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - A randomised comparison of the self-pressurised air-Q TM intubating laryngeal airway with the LMA Unique TM in children

AU - Jagannathan, Narasimhan

AU - Sohn, Lisa

AU - Sawardekar, Amod

AU - Shah, Ravi Dipak

AU - Ryan, K.

AU - Jagannathan, R.

AU - Anderson, K.

PY - 2012/9/1

Y1 - 2012/9/1

N2 - We conducted a randomised trial comparing the self-pressurised air-Q TM intubating laryngeal airway (air-Q SP) with the LMA-Unique in 60 children undergoing surgery. Outcomes measured were airway leak pressure, ease and time for insertion, fibreoptic examination, incidence of gastric insufflation and complications. Median (IQR [range]) time to successful device placement was faster with the air-Q SP (12 (10-15 [5-18])) s than with the LMA-Unique (14 (12-17 [6-22]) s; p = 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the air-Q SP and LMA-Unique in initial airway leak pressures (16 (14-18 [10-29]) compared with 18 (15-20 [10-30]) cmH 2O, p = 0.12), an airway leak pressures at 10 min (19 (16-22 [12-30]) compared with 20 (16-22 [10-30]) cmH 2O, p = 0.81); fibreoptic position, incidence of gastric insufflation, or complications. Both devices provided effective ventilation without the need for airway manipulation. The air-Q SP is an alternative to the LMA-Unique should the clinician prefer a device not requiring cuff monitoring during anaesthesia.

AB - We conducted a randomised trial comparing the self-pressurised air-Q TM intubating laryngeal airway (air-Q SP) with the LMA-Unique in 60 children undergoing surgery. Outcomes measured were airway leak pressure, ease and time for insertion, fibreoptic examination, incidence of gastric insufflation and complications. Median (IQR [range]) time to successful device placement was faster with the air-Q SP (12 (10-15 [5-18])) s than with the LMA-Unique (14 (12-17 [6-22]) s; p = 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the air-Q SP and LMA-Unique in initial airway leak pressures (16 (14-18 [10-29]) compared with 18 (15-20 [10-30]) cmH 2O, p = 0.12), an airway leak pressures at 10 min (19 (16-22 [12-30]) compared with 20 (16-22 [10-30]) cmH 2O, p = 0.81); fibreoptic position, incidence of gastric insufflation, or complications. Both devices provided effective ventilation without the need for airway manipulation. The air-Q SP is an alternative to the LMA-Unique should the clinician prefer a device not requiring cuff monitoring during anaesthesia.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84864698256&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84864698256&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2012.07199.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2012.07199.x

M3 - Article

VL - 67

SP - 973

EP - 979

JO - Anaesthesia

JF - Anaesthesia

SN - 0003-2409

IS - 9

ER -