The air‐Q® intubating laryngeal airway vs the LMA‐ProSealTM: a prospective, randomised trial of airway seal pressure

Summary We performed a prospective, open‐label, randomised controlled trial comparing the air‐Q® against the LMA‐ProSeal™ in adults undergoing general anaesthesia. One hundred subjects (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1–3) presenting for elective, outpatient surgery were random...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Anaesthesia 2011-12, Vol.66 (12), p.1093-1100
Main Authors: Galgon, R. E., Schroeder, K. M., Han, S., Andrei, A., Joffe, A. M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Anesthesia
Clinical trials
Medical equipment
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Summary We performed a prospective, open‐label, randomised controlled trial comparing the air‐Q® against the LMA‐ProSeal™ in adults undergoing general anaesthesia. One hundred subjects (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1–3) presenting for elective, outpatient surgery were randomly assigned to 52 air‐Q® and 48 ProSeal devices. The primary study endpoint was airway seal pressure. Oropharyngolaryngeal morbidity was assessed secondarily. Mean (SD) airway seal pressures for the air‐Q® and ProSeal were 30 (7) cmH2O and 30 (6) cmH2O, respectively (p = 0.47). Postoperative sore throat was more common with the air‐Q® (46% vs 38%, p = 0.03) as was pain on swallowing (30% vs 5%, p = 0.01). In conclusion, the air‐Q® performs well as a primary airway during the maintenance of general anaesthesia with an airway seal pressure similar to that of the ProSeal, but with a higher incidence of postoperative oropharyngolaryngeal complaints. You can respond to this article at http://www.anaesthesiacorrespondence.com
ISSN:0003-2409
1365-2044
DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06863.x