eISSN: 1731-2531
ISSN: 1642-5758
Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy
Current issue Archive Manuscripts accepted About the journal Supplements Editorial board Reviewers Abstracting and indexing Subscription Contact Instructions for authors Publication charge Ethical standards and procedures
Editorial System
Submit your Manuscript
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
Search

Open access

without publication fees

Journal integrated with

integrated with publons
2/2024
vol. 56
 
Share:
Send email
Share:
Original article

Comparison between Air-Q Self Pressurized Airway Device with Blocker and Proseal Laryngeal Mask Airway in anesthetized paralyzed adult female patients undergoing elective gynecological operations

Maha Mohammed Ismail Youssef
1
,
Naser Mohammed Dobal
1
,
Yahya Mohamed Hammad
1
,
Nesrine Abdel Rahman El-Refai
1
,
Reham Ali Abdelhaleem Abdelrahman
1

  1. Department of Anesthesia, Surgical ICU and Pain Management, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther 2024; 56, 2: 108–120
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5114/ait.2024.141203
Online publish date: 2024/07/23
Article file
- Comparison.pdf  [0.61 MB]
Get citation
 
PlumX metrics:
 
1. Cook T, Howes B. Supraglottic airway devices: recent advances. Continuing Education in Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain 2011; 11: 56-61. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjaceaccp/mkq058.
2. Michálek P, Miller DM. Airway management evolution – in a search for an ideal extraglottic airway device. Prague Med Rep 2014; 115: 87-103. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14712/23362936.2014.40.
3. Almeida G, Costa AC, Machado HS. Supraglottic airway devices: a review in a new era of airway management. J Anesth Clin Res 2016; 7: 647. doi: 10.4172/2155-6148.1000647.
4. LMA-Proseal Instructions Manual. San Diego: LMA North America; 2001.
5. Rana S, Anand LK, Singh M, Kapoor D, Gupta D, Kaur H. Comparative evaluation of self-pressurized Air-Q and Proseal LMA in patients undergoing elective surgery under general anaesthesia: a randomized clinical trial. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2024; 40: 336-343. doi: 10.4103/joacp.joacp_248_22.
6. Sanuki T, Uda R, Sugioka S, Diago E, Son H, Akatsuka M, et al. The influence of head and neck position on ventilation with the I-gel airway in paralyzed anesthetized patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2011; 28: 597-599. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e32834698f4.
7. 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: 286-287. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/82.2.286.
8. Kim HJ, Lee K, Bai S, Kim MH, Oh E, Yoo YC. Influence of head and neck position on ventilation using air-Q® SP airway in anaesthetized paralyzed patients: a prospective randomized crossover study. Br J Anaesth 2017; 118: 452-457. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aew448.
9. Malik MA, Subramaniam R, Churasia S, Maharaj CH, Harte BH, Laffey JG. Tracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization: a comparison of the Airway Scope®, LMA CTrach®, and the Macintosh laryngoscopes. Br J Anesth 2009; 102: 654-661. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aep056.
10. Alexiev V, Salim A, Kevin LG, Laffey JG. An observational study of the Baska® mask: a novel supraglottic airway. Anesthesia 2012; 67: 640-645. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2012.07140.x.
11. Beleña JM, Núñez M, Anta D, Carnero M, Gracia JL, Ayala JL, et al. Comparison of Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme and Laryngeal Mask Airway Proseal with respect to oropharyngeal leak pressure during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2013; 30: 119-123. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e32835aba6a.
12. Chauhan G, Nayar P, Seth A, Gupta K, Panwar M, Agrawal N. Comparison of clinical performance of the I-gel with LMA proseal. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2013; 29: 56-60. doi: 10.4103/0970-9185.105798.
13. Keller C, Brimacombe J, Pühringer F. A fiber-optic scoring system to assess the position of laryngeal mask airway devices. Inter-observer variability and a comparison between the standard, flexible and intubating laryngeal mask airways. Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther 2000; 35: 692-694. doi: 10.1055/s-2000-8164.
14. Brimacombe J, Berry A. A proposed fiber-optic scoring system to standardize the assessment of laryngeal mask airway position. Anesth Analg 1993; 76: 457.
15. Ovasapian A, Klock PA Jr, Chalabi BT. Proseal laryngeal mask airway. Fiber-optic assessment of the device position and utility. Anesthesiology 2002; 96: A-[32]. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200209002-01321.
16. Mishra SK, Nawaz M, Satyapraksh MVS, Parida S, Bidkar PU, Hemavathy B, et al. Influence of head and neck position on oropharyngeal leak pressure and cuff position with the Proseal Laryngeal Mask Airway and the I-Gel: a randomized clinical trial. Anesthesiol Res Pract 2015; 2015: 705869. doi: 10.1155/2015/705869.
17. Somri M, Gaitini L, Matter I, Hawash N, Falcucci O, Fornari GG, et al. A comparison between the Supreme laryngeal mask airway and the laryngeal tube suction during spontaneous ventilation: a randomized prospective study. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2018; 34: 182-187. doi: 10.4103/joacp.JOACP_24_17.
18. Anjali S, Sanjay B, Tarangtushar W, Kavita I. Postoperative laryngeal morbidity – comparison between endotracheal tube and laryngeal mask airway. J Med Sci Clin Res 2017; 5: 17786-17789. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v5i2.96.
19. Sharma D, Ahmed B, Tiwary V, K Malhotra MM, Agarwal D, Kaur S.A comparison of metal introducer and bougie-guided techniques of insertion PLMA™ with respect to cuff position and air leak. Indian Anaesth Forum 2018; 19: 15-21. doi: http://www.theiaforum.org/text.asp?2018/19/1/15/232915.
20. O’ Connor CJ Jr, Borromeo CJ, Stix MS. Assessing Proseal laryngeal mask positioning: the suprasternal notch test. Anesth Analg 2002; 94: 1374-1375. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200205000-00080.
21. Teoh WHL, Lee KM, Suhitharan T, Yahaya Z, Teo MM, Sia ATH. Comparison of the LMA Supreme vs. the I-gel in paralyzed patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery with controlled ventilation. Anesthesia 2010; 65: 1173-1179. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2010.06534.x.
22. Woo JJ, Sang YC, Seong JB, Kyoung HK. Comparison of the Proseal LMA and intersurgical I-gel during gynecological laparoscopy. Korean J Anesthesiol 2012; 63: 510-514. doi: 10.4097/kjae.2012.63.6.510.
23. Altman DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London, UK; Chapman & Hall; 1991.
24. Altman DG. How large a sample? In: Gore SM, Altman DG (eds.). Statistics in Practice. London, UK: British Medical Association; 1982.
25. Moser B, Audige L, Keller C, Brimacombe J, Gasteiger L, Bruppacher HR. Flexible bronchoscopic intubation through the AuraGainTM laryngeal mask versus a slit Guedel tube: a non-inferiority randomized-controlled trial. Can J Anesth 2017; 64: 1119-1128. doi: 10.1007/s12630-017-0936-7.
26. Galgon RE, Schroeder KM, Joffe AM, Han S, Andrei A. The air-Q® intubating laryngeal airway vs. the LMA-ProsealTM: a prospective, randomized trial of airway seal pressure. Anaesthesia 2011; 66: 1093-1100. doi: 10.1111/j. 1365-2044. 2011.06863.x.
27. http://www.mercurymed.com.
28. Bakker EJ, Valkenburg M, Galvin EM. Pilot study of the Air-Q Intubating Laryngeal Airway in clinical use. Anaesth Intensive Care 2010; 38: 346-348. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0310057X1003800217.
29. Ahn EJ, Choi GJ, Kang H, Baek CW, Jung YH, Woo YC. Comparative efficacy of the Air-Q intubating laryngeal airway during general anesthesia in pediatric patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Biomed Res Int 2016; 2016: 6406391. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/6406391.
30. Darlong V, Biyani G, Baidya DK, Pandey R, Punj J. Air-Q blocker: a novel supraglottic airway device for patients with difficult airway and risk of aspiration. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2014; 30: 589-590.doi: 10.4103/0970-9185.142904.
31. Youssef MMI, Lotfy M, Hammad Y, Elmenshawy E. Comparative study between LMA-ProsealTM and Air-Q® Blocker for ventilation in adult eye trauma patients. Egypt J Anaesth 2014; 30: 227-233. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egja.2014.01.009.
32. Jagannathan N, Sohan LE, Sawardekar A, Shah R, Ryan R, Jagannathan R, et al. A randomized comparison of Self-Pressurized Air-QTM Intubating Laryngeal Airway with the LMA-UniqueTM in children. Anaesthesia 2012; 67: 973-979. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2012.07199.x.
33. Hwang J, Hong B, Kim YH, Lee WH, Jo Y, Youn S, et al. Comparison of laryngeal mask airway supremeTM as non-inflatable cuff device and self-pressurized air-QTM in children: randomized controlled non-inferiority study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2019; 98: e14746. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000014746.
34. Shehata JI, El-Refai NA, Yousef MI, Dobal NA, Mohamed AA, Abo El Ella KM, et al. A prospective randomized comparative study between the self-pressurized Air-Q With Blocker and Air-Q Blocker in female patients undergoing minor gynecological procedures. J Anesthesia and Clinical Care 2020; 7: 100047. doi: dx.doi.org/10.24966/ACC-8879/100047.
35. Lim Y, Goel S, Brimacombe JR. The Proseal laryngeal mask airway is an effective alternative to laryngoscope-guided tracheal intubation for gynecological laparoscopy. Anaesth Intensive Care 2007; 35: 52-56. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0310057X0703500106.
36. Cook TM, Lee G, Nolan JP. The Proseal laryngeal mask airway: a review of the literature. Can J Anaesth 2005; 52: 739-760. doi: 10.1007/BF03016565.
37. Shin HW, Yoo HN, Bae GE, Chang JC, Park MK, You HS, et al. Comparison of oropharyngeal leak pressure and clinical performance of LMA ProsealTM and I-gel® in adults: meta-analysis and systemic review. J Int Med Res 2016; 44: 405-418. doi: 10.1177/0300060515607386.
38. Ha SH, Kim MS, Suh J, Lee JS. Self-pressurized air-Q® intubating laryngeal airway versus the LMA® ClassicTM: a randomized clinical trial. Can J Anesth 2018; 65: 543-550. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-018-1082-6.
39. Jagannathan N, Sohn LE, Mankoo R, Langen KE, Roth AG, Hall SC. Prospective evaluation of the self-pressurized air-Q intubating laryngeal airway in children. Paediatr Anaesth 2011; 21: 673-680. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2011.03576.x.
40. Gupta R, Mahajan R, Jatinder M, Gulati S, Mehta A, Nazir R. A comparison between Proseal Laryngeal Mask Airway and Air-Q Blocker in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Anaes­thesiol Clin Pharmacol 2019; 35: 340-347. doi: 10.4103/joacp.JOACP_397_17.
41. Aly AA, Ghanem MT. Comparison of the performance of the Self-Pressurized Air-Q Intubating Laryngeal Airway with LMA-Proseal in pediatric patients under general anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial. Ain Shams J Anesthesiol 2017; 10: 149-155. doi: 10.4103/asja.asja_111_16.
42. Moorthy PVC, Desai D, Upadhyay MR. Comparison of the Air-Q intubating laryngeal airway with the Proseal laryngeal mask airway in elective surgeries: a randomized controlled study. Indian J Clin Anaesth 2019; 6: 349-354. doi: http://doi.org/10.18231/j.ijca.2019.067.
43. Park SH, Han SH, Do SH, Kim JW, Kim JH. The influence of head and neck position on the oropharyngeal leak pressure and cuff position of three supra-glottic airway devices. Anesthes Analg 2009; 108: 112-117. doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e318192376f.
44. Ghabach MB, El Hajj EM, El Dib RD, Rkaiby JM, Matta MS, Helou MR. Ventilation of non-paralyzed patients under anesthesia with laryngeal mask airway, comparison of three modes of ventilation: volume controlled ventilation, pressure controlled ventilation, and pressure controlled ventilation-volume guarantee. Anesthes Essays Res 2017; 11: 197-200. doi: 10.4103/0259-1162.200238.
45. Henlin T, Sotak M, Kovaricek P, Tyll T, Balcarek L, Michalek P. Comparison of five 2nd generation supraglottic airway devices for airway management performed by novice military operators. Biomed Res Int 2015; 2015: 201898. doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/201898.
46. Hernandez MR, Klock PA, Ovassapian A. Evolution of the extraglottic airway: a review of its history, applications, and practical tips for success. Anesth Analg 2012; 114: 349-368. doi: https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0b013e31823b6784.
47. Sorbello M, Petrini F. Supraglottic Airway Devices: the search for the best insertion technique or the time to change our point of view? Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim 2017; 45: 76-82. doi: 10.5152/TJAR.2017.67764.
48. Jagannathan N, Sohn LE, Mankoo R, Langen KE, Mandler T. A randomized crossover comparison between the Laryngeal Mask Airway-UniqueTM and the Air-Q intubating laryngeal airway in children. Pediatr Anaesth 2012; 22: 161-167. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.
49. 2011.03703.x.
50. Galgon RE, Schroeder K, Joffe AM. The Self-Pressurizing Air-Q® Intubating Laryngeal Airway for airway maintenance during anes­thesia in adults: a report of the first 100 uses. Anaesth Intensive Care 2012; 40: 1023-1027. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0310057X­1204000614.
51. Kim MS, Lee JH, Han SW, Im YJ, Kang HJ, Lee JR. A randomized comparison of I-gelTM with Self-Pressurized Air-Q Intubating Laryngeal Airway in children. Pediatr Anaesth 2015; 25: 405-412. doi: 10.1111/pan.12609.
52. Nishimoto K, Kariya N, Iwasaki Y, Shii H, Sugi T, Tatara T, et al. Air-Q® intubating laryngeal airway as a conduit for tracheal intubation in a patient with Apert syndrome: a case report (Japanese). Masui 2014; 63: 1125-1127 [Article in Japanese].
53. Schebesta K, Karanovic G, Krafft P, Rossler B, Kimberger O. Distance from the glottis to the grille: the LMA Unique, Air-Q and Cobra PLA as intubation conduits: a randomized trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2014; 31: 159-165. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000019.
54. Darlog V, Biayani G, Pandey R, Baidya DK, Chandralekha, Punj J. Comparison of the performance and efficacy of air-Q intubating laryngeal airway and flexible laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized and paralyzed infants and children. Pediatr Anesth 2014; 24: 1066-1071. doi: 10.1111/pan.12462.
55. 54.Girgis KK, Youssef MM, Elzayyat NS. Comparison of the Air-Q Intubating Laryngeal Airway and the Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway as conduits for fiber-optic guided intubation in pediatric patients. Saudi J Anaesth 2014; 8: 470-476. doi: 10.4103/1658-354X.140841.
56. Darlong V, Biyani G, Baidya DK, Pandey R, Chandralekha, Punj J, et al. Comparison of air-Q and Ambu Aura-I for controlled ventilation in infants: a randomized controlled trial. Paediat Anaesth 2015; 25: 795-800. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/pan.12663.
57. Jagannathan N, Sohn LE, Sawardekar A, Gordon J, Shah RD, Mukherji II, et al. A randomized trial comparing the Ambu®Aura-i TM with the air-QTM intubating laryngeal airway as conduits for tracheal intubation in children. Paediatr Anaesth 2012; 22: 1197-1204. doi: 10.1111/pan.12024.
58. Jagannathan N, Sohn L, Ramsey M, Huang A, Sawardekar A, Sequera-Ramos L, et al. A randomized comparison between the I-gelTM and the air-QTM supraglottic airways when used by anesthesiology trainees as conduits for tracheal intubation in children. Can J Anaesth 2015; 62: 587-594. doi: 10.1007/s12630-014-0304-9.
59. Hwang J, Hong B, Kim YH, Lee WH, Jo Y, Youn S, et al. Comparison of laryngeal mask airway supremeTM as non-inflatable cuff device and self-pressurized air-QTM in children: randomized controlled non-inferio­rity study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2019; 98: e14746. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000014746.
This is an Open Access journal, all articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
Termedia
About us Contact
Copyright notice Privacy policy Advertising policy Contact us
Quick links
Journals Books eBooks Events
© 2024 Termedia Sp. z o.o.
Developed by Bentus.