A randomized crossover comparison between the laryngeal mask airway-unique™ and the air-Q intubating laryngeal airway in children

Narasimhan Jagannathan*, Lisa Sohn, Ravinder Mankoo, Kenneth E. Langen, Tessa Mandler

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this randomized crossover study was to evaluate the feasibility of the air-Q intubating laryngeal airway (ILA) in clinical practice when compared with the Laryngeal Mask Airway-Unique™ (LMA-U), the current standard of care for primary airway maintenance. Aim: We hypothesized that the ILA would have better airway seal pressures and laryngeal alignment than the LMA-U in anesthetized nonparalyzed children. Background: The ILA is a newer supraglottic airway for children with design features that allow it to be used for primary airway maintenance and as a conduit for tracheal intubations. Methods: Fifty healthy children, 6-36 months of age, 10-15 kg, who were scheduled for elective surgery in which the use of a size two LMA-U and size 1.5 ILA would be appropriate for airway maintenance, were enrolled into this randomized crossover study. Primary outcome measures were airway leak pressures and fiberoptic grades of view. Secondary outcome measures included ease and time for successful insertion, incidence of gastric insufflation, ventilation parameters, and complications. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in regard to the ease of device insertion, time to ventilation, gastric insufflation, and ventilation parameters between the ILA and the LMA-U. All devices were successfully placed on the first attempt, and there were no instances of failure. There were statistically significant differences in the airway leak pressure between the ILA (19.0 ± 5.4 cmH 2O) and the LMA-U (16.1 ± 4.9 cmH 2O), P = 0.001. There were also statistically significant differences in the fiberoptic grades of view between the ILA and LMA-U, P = 0.004. Conclusions: The ILA had higher airway leak pressures and superior fiberoptic grades of view when compared with the LMA-U and can be a suitable alternative to the LMA-U in children weighing 10-15 kg.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)161-167
Number of pages7
JournalPaediatric Anaesthesia
Volume22
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2012

Fingerprint

Laryngeal Masks
Air
Ventilation
Pressure
Insufflation
Maintenance
Cross-Over Studies
Stomach
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Equipment and Supplies
Standard of Care
Intubation
Incidence

Keywords

  • Laryngeal Mask Airway
  • airway devices
  • children
  • equipment air-Q
  • intubating laryngeal airway

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

@article{7fb018bae4f446a581e0e31a062725a5,
title = "A randomized crossover comparison between the laryngeal mask airway-unique™ and the air-Q intubating laryngeal airway in children",
abstract = "Objectives: The purpose of this randomized crossover study was to evaluate the feasibility of the air-Q intubating laryngeal airway (ILA) in clinical practice when compared with the Laryngeal Mask Airway-Unique™ (LMA-U), the current standard of care for primary airway maintenance. Aim: We hypothesized that the ILA would have better airway seal pressures and laryngeal alignment than the LMA-U in anesthetized nonparalyzed children. Background: The ILA is a newer supraglottic airway for children with design features that allow it to be used for primary airway maintenance and as a conduit for tracheal intubations. Methods: Fifty healthy children, 6-36 months of age, 10-15 kg, who were scheduled for elective surgery in which the use of a size two LMA-U and size 1.5 ILA would be appropriate for airway maintenance, were enrolled into this randomized crossover study. Primary outcome measures were airway leak pressures and fiberoptic grades of view. Secondary outcome measures included ease and time for successful insertion, incidence of gastric insufflation, ventilation parameters, and complications. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in regard to the ease of device insertion, time to ventilation, gastric insufflation, and ventilation parameters between the ILA and the LMA-U. All devices were successfully placed on the first attempt, and there were no instances of failure. There were statistically significant differences in the airway leak pressure between the ILA (19.0 ± 5.4 cmH 2O) and the LMA-U (16.1 ± 4.9 cmH 2O), P = 0.001. There were also statistically significant differences in the fiberoptic grades of view between the ILA and LMA-U, P = 0.004. Conclusions: The ILA had higher airway leak pressures and superior fiberoptic grades of view when compared with the LMA-U and can be a suitable alternative to the LMA-U in children weighing 10-15 kg.",
keywords = "Laryngeal Mask Airway, airway devices, children, equipment air-Q, intubating laryngeal airway",
author = "Narasimhan Jagannathan and Lisa Sohn and Ravinder Mankoo and Langen, {Kenneth E.} and Tessa Mandler",
year = "2012",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1460-9592.2011.03703.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "161--167",
journal = "Paediatric Anaesthesia",
issn = "1155-5645",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

A randomized crossover comparison between the laryngeal mask airway-unique™ and the air-Q intubating laryngeal airway in children. / Jagannathan, Narasimhan; Sohn, Lisa; Mankoo, Ravinder; Langen, Kenneth E.; Mandler, Tessa.

In: Paediatric Anaesthesia, Vol. 22, No. 2, 01.02.2012, p. 161-167.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - A randomized crossover comparison between the laryngeal mask airway-unique™ and the air-Q intubating laryngeal airway in children

AU - Jagannathan, Narasimhan

AU - Sohn, Lisa

AU - Mankoo, Ravinder

AU - Langen, Kenneth E.

AU - Mandler, Tessa

PY - 2012/2/1

Y1 - 2012/2/1

N2 - Objectives: The purpose of this randomized crossover study was to evaluate the feasibility of the air-Q intubating laryngeal airway (ILA) in clinical practice when compared with the Laryngeal Mask Airway-Unique™ (LMA-U), the current standard of care for primary airway maintenance. Aim: We hypothesized that the ILA would have better airway seal pressures and laryngeal alignment than the LMA-U in anesthetized nonparalyzed children. Background: The ILA is a newer supraglottic airway for children with design features that allow it to be used for primary airway maintenance and as a conduit for tracheal intubations. Methods: Fifty healthy children, 6-36 months of age, 10-15 kg, who were scheduled for elective surgery in which the use of a size two LMA-U and size 1.5 ILA would be appropriate for airway maintenance, were enrolled into this randomized crossover study. Primary outcome measures were airway leak pressures and fiberoptic grades of view. Secondary outcome measures included ease and time for successful insertion, incidence of gastric insufflation, ventilation parameters, and complications. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in regard to the ease of device insertion, time to ventilation, gastric insufflation, and ventilation parameters between the ILA and the LMA-U. All devices were successfully placed on the first attempt, and there were no instances of failure. There were statistically significant differences in the airway leak pressure between the ILA (19.0 ± 5.4 cmH 2O) and the LMA-U (16.1 ± 4.9 cmH 2O), P = 0.001. There were also statistically significant differences in the fiberoptic grades of view between the ILA and LMA-U, P = 0.004. Conclusions: The ILA had higher airway leak pressures and superior fiberoptic grades of view when compared with the LMA-U and can be a suitable alternative to the LMA-U in children weighing 10-15 kg.

AB - Objectives: The purpose of this randomized crossover study was to evaluate the feasibility of the air-Q intubating laryngeal airway (ILA) in clinical practice when compared with the Laryngeal Mask Airway-Unique™ (LMA-U), the current standard of care for primary airway maintenance. Aim: We hypothesized that the ILA would have better airway seal pressures and laryngeal alignment than the LMA-U in anesthetized nonparalyzed children. Background: The ILA is a newer supraglottic airway for children with design features that allow it to be used for primary airway maintenance and as a conduit for tracheal intubations. Methods: Fifty healthy children, 6-36 months of age, 10-15 kg, who were scheduled for elective surgery in which the use of a size two LMA-U and size 1.5 ILA would be appropriate for airway maintenance, were enrolled into this randomized crossover study. Primary outcome measures were airway leak pressures and fiberoptic grades of view. Secondary outcome measures included ease and time for successful insertion, incidence of gastric insufflation, ventilation parameters, and complications. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in regard to the ease of device insertion, time to ventilation, gastric insufflation, and ventilation parameters between the ILA and the LMA-U. All devices were successfully placed on the first attempt, and there were no instances of failure. There were statistically significant differences in the airway leak pressure between the ILA (19.0 ± 5.4 cmH 2O) and the LMA-U (16.1 ± 4.9 cmH 2O), P = 0.001. There were also statistically significant differences in the fiberoptic grades of view between the ILA and LMA-U, P = 0.004. Conclusions: The ILA had higher airway leak pressures and superior fiberoptic grades of view when compared with the LMA-U and can be a suitable alternative to the LMA-U in children weighing 10-15 kg.

KW - Laryngeal Mask Airway

KW - airway devices

KW - children

KW - equipment air-Q

KW - intubating laryngeal airway

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84855344081&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84855344081&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2011.03703.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2011.03703.x

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 161

EP - 167

JO - Paediatric Anaesthesia

JF - Paediatric Anaesthesia

SN - 1155-5645

IS - 2

ER -