Skip to main content
Log in

A randomized comparison of the Ambu AuraGain versus the LMA supreme in patients undergoing gynaecologic laparoscopic surgery

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Second generation supraglottic airway devices providing high seal airway pressures are suitable for patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopy. We compared the seal pressure achieved by the new Ambu AuraGain™ versus LMA Supreme™ following pneumoperitoneum in the Trendelenburg position. Sixty female patients were randomly allocated to ventilation with either the AuraGain or the Supreme. A target-controlled system was used to administer total intravenous anesthesia. Intracuff pressure was maintained below 60 cm H2O. The following parameters were registered: Time, number of attempts and manoeuvres required for insertion; seal pressure and peak inspiratory pressure at four time points; ease of gastric tube insertion, flexible scope view, complications and postoperative morbidity. Both devices were quick and easily inserted, although the Supreme required less rotation manoeuvres (16 in AuraGain vs. 6 in LMA Supreme; p = 0.01). The AuraGain achieved higher seal pressures (34 ± 5 in AuraGain vs. 29 ± 5 in LMA Supreme; p = 0.0002). Following pneumoperitoneum in head-down position, peak airway pressure increased 9 ± 3 cm H2O in both groups, exceeding seal pressure in 3 patients in the Supreme group (p = 0.06). The vocal cords were seen through all AuraGain and 90% of the Supreme devices; epiglottis was often visible inside the tube (68%). No differences were found in the incidence of traces of blood on the mask or postoperative symptoms. Both devices allowed effective ventilation in patients undergoing gynaecologic laparoscopic surgery with a low rate of complications. The Ambu AuraGain provided higher seal pressures and a clear view of glottic inlet in all patients offering the possibility to guide direct tracheal intubation if required.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lee AKY, Tey JBL, Lim Y, Sia ATH. Comparison of the single-use LMA Supreme with the reusable ProSeal LMA for anaesthesia in gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2009;37:815–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Teoh WHL, Lee KM, Suhitharan T, Yahaya Z, Teo MM, Sia ATH. Comparison of the LMA Supreme vs the i-gel in paralysed patients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopic surgery with controlled ventilation. Anaesthesia. 2010;65:1173–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Abdi W, Amathieu R, Adhoum A, et al. Sparing the larynx during gynecological laparoscopy: a randomized trial comparing the LMA Supreme and the ETT. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2010;54:141–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jeon WJ, Cho SY, Baek SJ, Kim KH. Comparison of the Proseal LMA and intersurgical I-gel during gynecological laparoscopy. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2012;63:510–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Wong DT, Yang JJ, Jagannathan N. Brief review: the LMA Supreme™ supraglottic airway. Can J Anaesth. 2012;59:483–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. López AM, Valero R, Lopez S, Zaballos M, Garcia ML. LMA Supreme TM: new design or a pig in a poke? Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim. 2013;60:597–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. López AM, Valero R, Hurtado P, Gambús P, Pons M, Anglada T. Comparison of the LMA SupremeTM with the LMA ProsealTM for airway management in patients anaesthetized in prone position. Br J Anaesth. 2011;56:265–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Verghese C, Ramaswamy B. LMA-Supreme™—a new single-use LMA™ with gastric access: a report on its clinical efficacy. Br J Anaesth. 2008;101:405–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Timmermann A, Cremer S, Eich C, et al. Prospective clinical and fiberoptic evaluation of the Supreme laryngeal mask airway. Anesthesiology. 2009;110:262–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jagannathan N, Hajduk J, Sohn L, et al. A randomised comparison of the Ambu ® AuraGain TM and the LMA ® supreme in infants and children. Anaesthesia. 2015;71:205–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lopez A, Sala-Blanch X, Valero R, Prats A. Cross-over assessment of the AmbuAuraGain, LMA Supreme New Cuff and Intersurgical I-Gel in fresh cadavers. Open J Anesthesiol. 2014;4:332–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Maltby JR, Beriault MT, Watson NC, Liepert DJ, Fick GH. LMA-Classic and LMA-ProSeal are effective alternatives to endotracheal intubation for gynecologic laparoscopy. Can J Anaesthesiol. 2003;50:71–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jeon WJ, Cho SY, Bang MR, Ko SY. Comparison of volume-controlled and pressure-controlled ventilation using a laryngeal mask airway during gynecological laparoscopy. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2011;60:167–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Balick-Weber CC, Nicolas P, Hedreville-Montout M, Blanchet P, Stéphan F. Respiratory and haemodynamic effects of volume-controlled vs pressure-controlled ventilation during laparoscopy: a cross-over study with echocardiographic assessment. Br J Anaesth. 2007;99:429–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chiplonkar S, Sinha M, Ghanshani R. Pressure-controlled inverse ratio ventilation using laryngeal mask airway in gynecological laparoscopy. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2012;28:330.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Seet E, Yousaf F, Gupta S, Subramanyam R, Wong DT, Chung F. Use of manometry for laryngeal mask airway reduces postoperative pharyngolaryngeal adverse events: a prospective, randomized trial. Anesthesiology. 2010;112:652–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Timmermann A, Bergner UA, Russo SG. Laryngeal mask airway indications. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2015;28:717–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Keller C, Brimacombe JR, Keller K, Morris R. Comparison of four methods for assessing airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in adult patients. Br J Anaesth. 1999;82:286–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank their colleagues at the Department of Gynaecology, in particular Dr Mariona Rius; the nurse anaesthetists, and PACU nurses at the Ambulatory Surgery Unit, Hospital Clinic for their collaboration in the study.

Funding

This study was founded by the Department of Anaesthesiology, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Spain and partially supported by Ambu A/S Ballerup, Denmark. All SGAD devices and aScopes used in this study were provided free of charge by Ambu A/S. Sponsors approved the study protocol designed by the authors, but they were not involved in patient recruitment; collection, analysis and interpretation of data; and manuscript writing and editing.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana M. Lopez.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Dr. Ana M. López has received consultant and lecturer fees from Ambu A/S, Ballerup, Denmark; and from Teleflex Medical, SA, Madrid, Spain. Use the “Insert Citation” button to add citations to this document.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lopez, A.M., Agusti, M., Gambus, P. et al. A randomized comparison of the Ambu AuraGain versus the LMA supreme in patients undergoing gynaecologic laparoscopic surgery. J Clin Monit Comput 31, 1255–1262 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-016-9963-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-016-9963-0

Keywords

Navigation