LMA-Supreme™ - A new single-use LMA™ with gastric access: A report on its clinical efficacy

118Citations
Citations of this article
52Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: LMA-Supreme™ (SLMA) is a new, single-use, latex-free, laryngeal mask airway™ with gastric access. The anatomically shaped airway tube permits easy insertion without placing fingers in the patient's mouth. The cuff is designed to provide higher seal pressures than the LMA-Classic or Unique™. Methods: A prospective, randomized, cross-over study of LMA-Proseal™ (PLMA) and SLMA in 36 fasted, adult, female patients with general anaesthesia, neuromuscular block (NMB) and positive pressure ventilation (PPV) is presented. Results: First attempt insertion in 35/36 patients in each group (two attempts in one PLMA and three in one SLMA patient) with successful PPV in all. Median insertion time (15 s) and glottic seal pressure (28 cm H 2O) were similar in both groups. Median volume of air for cuff inflation to 60 cm H2O was 22.4 ml (PLMA) and 21.9 ml (SLMA). Median age and BMI: 50 yr (range 25-74), 51 yr (23-72) and 29 kg m-2 (range 21-46), 30 kg m-2 (20-42) in PLMA and SLMA groups, respectively. Mallampati score mean arterial pressures after induction, and 1 min after induction and insertion of the first device were similar. A lubricated gastric tube (16Fr) was passed at the first attempt in both devices: median gastric content 15 ml (5-75), 17.5 (5-124) and a median pH of 3 (1-6), 1.5 (1-6) in the PLMA and SLMA groups, respectively. Fibreoptic laryngoscopic scores of 1-2 were recorded in 29/36 in both groups. Conclusions: Insertion success, glottic seal pressure and gastric access were similar in SLMA and PLMA. © The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia 2008. All rights reserved.

Author supplied keywords

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Verghese, C., & Ramaswamy, B. (2008). LMA-SupremeTM - A new single-use LMATM with gastric access: A report on its clinical efficacy. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 101(3), 405–410. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aen174

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free