Advertisement

Comparison of LM-Supreme™ and endotracheal tube in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery

  • Bahar Kuvaki
  • Şule ÖzbilginEmail author
  • Sakize Ferim Günenç
  • Burcu Ataseven Küçük
Original Research
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

While laryngeal mask is widely used for laparoscopic interventions in some countries, concerns exist regarding pulmonary aspiration and inadequate ventilation. We compared the LM-Supreme™ (LM-S) with the endotracheal tube (ETT) for laparoscopic gynecological interventions in terms of ventilation parameters and gastric distention. This prospective randomized and double-blind study. The patients were divided into two groups: ETT (n = 50) and LM-S group (n = 50). All patients in the LM-S and ETT groups recieved total intravenous general anaesthesia and standard ventilation protocols. Ventilation parameters (airway peak pressure, mean airway pressure, end-tidal carbon dioxide, total volume, oropharyngeal leak pressure) and perioperative laryngopharyngeal morbidity were recorded before peritoneal insufflation, during and after the peroperative period. The mean airway pressure values in the ETT group 2 min after airway device insertion were significantly higher. The gastric distension after the laparoscope entered the abdomen in the LM-S group was found to be significantly lower. In the first hour postoperative sore throat, disphonia and dysphagia were statistically significantly higher in the ETT group. In our study we concluded that LM-S provides reliable endotracheal intubation in ASA I & II patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery under positive pressure ventilation.

ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02127632.

Keywords

Laryngeal mask Supreme Endotracheal tube Gynecological surgery Laparoscopy 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Asai T, Morris S. The laryngeal mask airway: its features, effects and role. Can J Anaesth. 1994;41:930–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cook T, Howes B. Supraglottic airway devices: recent advances. Contin Educ Anaesth Crit Care Pain. 2011;11:56–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chmielewski C, Snyder-Clickett S. The use of the laryngeal mask airway with mechanical positive pressure ventilation. AANA J. 2004;72:347–51.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Viraa D, Myles PS. The use of laryngeal mask in gynaecological laparoscopy. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2004;32:560–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Swann DG, Spens H, Edwards SA, Chestnut RJ. Anaesthesia for gynaecological laparoscopy—a comparison between the laryngeal mask airway and tracheal intubation. Anaesthesia. 1993;48:431–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Belena JM, Nunez M, Gracia JL, Pérez JL, Yuste J. The Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme TM: safety and efficacy during gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. S Afr J Anaesth Analg. 2012;18:143–7.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Abdi W, Amathieu R, Adhoum A, Poncelet C, Slavov V, Kamoun W, Combes X, Dhonneur G. Sparing the larynx during gynecological laparoscopy: a randomized trial comparing the LMA Supremet and the ETT. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2010;54:141–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Riley RH, Williams M, Ferguson C. Preparation of Supreme laryngeal mask airway affects insertion. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2010;38:211–2.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miller DM, Camporota L. Advantages of ProSealTM and SLIPA™ airways over tracheal tubes for gynecological laparoscopies. Can J Anesth. 2006;53:188–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee AKY, Tey JBL, Lım Y, Sıa ATH. Comparison of the single-use LMASupreme with the reusable Proseal LMA for anaesthesia in gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2009;37:815–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hohlrieder M, Brimacombe J, Eschertzhuber S, Ulmer H, Keller C. A study of airway management using the ProSeal LMA laryngeal mask airway compared with the tracheal tube on postoperative analgesia requirements following gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. Anaesthesia. 2007;62:913–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Teoh WHL, Lee KM, Suhitharan T, et al. Comparasion of the LMA Supreme vs the i-gel™ in paralysed patients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopic surgery with controlled ventilation. Anaesthesia. 2010;65:1173–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tham HM, Tan SM, Woon KL, Zhao YD. A comparison of the Supreme laryngeal mask airway with the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized paralyzed adult patients: a randomized crossover study. Can J Anesth. 2010;57:672–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Beylacq L, Bordes M, Semjen F, Cros A-M. The I-gel, a single-use supraglottic airway device with a non-inflatable cuff and an esophageal vent: an observational study in children. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2009;53:376–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Seet E, Rajeev S, Firoz T, et al. Safety and efficacy of laryngeal mask airway Supreme versus laryngeal mask airway ProSeal: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010;27:602–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maltby JR, Beriault MT, Watson NC, Fick GH. Gastric distension and ventilation during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: LMA-Classic vs. tracheal intubation. Can J Anesth. 2000;47:622–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Timmermann A, Cremer S, Eich C, Kazmaier S, Bräuer A, Graf BM, Russo SG. Prospective clinical and fiberoptic evaluation of the supreme laryngeal mask airway. Anesthesiology. 2009;110:262–5.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eschertzhuber S, Brimacombe J, Hohlrieder M, Keller C. The laryngeal mask airway Supreme: a single use laryngeal mask airway with an oesophageal vent. A randomized, cross-over study with the laryngeal mask airway. ProSeal in paralysed, anaesthetised patients. Anaesthesia. 2009;64:79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cook TM, Gatward JJ, Handel J, Hardy R, Thompson C, Srivastava R, Clarke PA. Evaluation of the LMA Supreme in 100 nonparalysed patients. Anaesthesia. 2009;64:555–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van Zundert A, Brimacombe J. The LMA Supreme: a pilot study. Anaesthesia. 2008;63:202–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Saraswat N, Kumar A, Mishra A, Gupta A, Saurabh G, Srivastava U. The comparison of Proseal laryngeal mask airway and endotracheal tube in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries under general anaesthesia. Indian J Anaesth. 2011;55:129–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lorenz V, Rich JM, Schebesta K, Taslakian S, Müllner M, Frass M, Schuster E, Illievich UM, Kaye AD, Vaida S, et al. Comparison of the EasyTube® and endotracheal tube during general anaesthesia in fasted adult patients. J Clin Anaesthesiol. 2009;21:341–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Carron M, Veronese S, Gomiero W, Foletto M, Nitti D, Ori C, Freo U. Hemodynamic and hormonal stress responses to endotracheal tube and ProSeal laryngeal mask AirwayTM for laparoscopic gastric banding. Anesthesiology. 2012;117:309–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shroff P, Kamath S. Randomized comparative study between the proseal laryngeal mask airway and the endotracheal tube for laparoscopic surgery. Int J Anesthesiol. 2006;11:1.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Maltby JR, Beriault MT, Watson NC, Liepert D, Fick GH. The LMA- ProSeal™ is an effective alternative to tracheal intubation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Can J Anesth. 2002;49:857–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ozdamar D, Güvenç BH, Toker K, Solak M, Ekingen G. Comparison of the effect of LMA and ETT on ventilation and intragastric pressure in pediatric laparoscopic procedures. Minerva Anestesiol. 2010;76:592–9.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Verghese C, Brimacombe JR. Survey of laryngeal mask airway usage in 11,910 patients: safety and efficacy for conventional and nonconventional usage. Anesth Analg. 1996;82:129–33.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Brimacombe J. Laparoscopy and the laryngeal mask airway. Br J Anaesth. 1994;73:121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bapat PP, Verghese C. Laryngeal mask airway and the incidence of regurgitation during gynecological laparoscopies. Anesth Analg. 1997;85:139–43.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jeon JW, Cho YS, Bang MR, Ko S-Y. Comparison of volume-controlled and pressure-controlled ventilation using a laryngeal mask airway during gynecological laparoscopy. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2011;60:167–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Singam AP, Jaiswal AA, Chaudhari AR. Comparison of laryngeal mask airway supreme™ versus endotracheal intubation in positive pressure ventilation with muscle relaxant for intraoperative and postoperative conditions. Int J Res Med Sci. 2018;6(1):129–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Belena JM, Gracia JL, Ayala JL, Núñez M, Lorenzo JA, et al. The Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme for positive pressure ventilation during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Clin Anesth. 2011;23:456–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    L’Hermite J, Dubout E, Bouvet S, Bracoud LH, Cuvillon P, Coussaye JE, Ripart J. Sore throat following three adult supraglottic airway devices: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2017;34(7):417–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Subramanian S, Sethi D. Supraglottic devices in laparoscopic surgery—a review of literature. J Anesth Clin Care. 2016;3:013.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bahar Kuvaki
    • 1
  • Şule Özbilgin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sakize Ferim Günenç
    • 1
  • Burcu Ataseven Küçük
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Faculty of MedicineDokuz Eylul UniversityİzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations