The clinical effectiveness of the streamlined liner of pharyngeal airway (SLIPA(TM)) compared with the laryngeal mask airway ProSeal(TM) during general anesthesia.
10.4097/kjae.2010.58.5.450
- Author:
Yun Mi CHOI
1
;
Su Man CHA
;
Hyun KANG
;
Chong Wha BAEK
;
Yong Hun JUNG
;
Young Cheol WOO
;
Jin Yun KIM
;
Gill Hoi KOO
;
Sun Gyoo PARK
Author Information
1. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Korea. roman00@naver.com
- Publication Type:Original Article ; Randomized Controlled Trial
- Keywords:
Airway;
Anesthesia;
PLMA;
SLIPA;
Supraglottic airway
- MeSH:
Anesthesia;
Anesthesia, General;
Blood Stains;
Bronchoscopy;
Hemodynamics;
Humans;
Incidence;
Laryngeal Masks;
Lung;
Mechanics;
Pharyngitis;
Pharynx;
Rivers;
Spirometry
- From:Korean Journal of Anesthesiology
2010;58(5):450-457
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the streamlined liner of the pharynx airway (SLIPA), a new supraglottic airway device (SGA), with the laryngeal mask airway ProSeal(TM) (PLMA) during general anesthesia. METHODS: Sixty patients were randomly allocated to two groups; a PLMA group (n = 30) or a SLIPA group (n = 30). Ease of use, first insertion success rate, hemodynamic responses to insertion, ventilatory efficiency and positioning confirmed by fiberoptic bronchoscopy were assessed. Lung mechanics data were collected with side stream spirometry at 10 minutes after insertion. We also compared the incidence of blood stain, incidence and severity of postoperative sore throat and other complications. RESULTS: First attempt success rates were 93.3% and 73.3%, and mean insertion time was 7.3 sec and 10.5 sec in PLMA and SLIPA. There was a significant rise in all of hemodynamic response from the pre-insertion value at one minute following insertion of SLIPA. But, insertion of PLMA was no significant rise in hemodynamic response. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean maximum sealing pressure, gas leakage, lung mechanics data, gastric distension, postoperative sore throat and other complication between the two groups. Blood stain were noted on the surface of the device in 40% (n = 12) in the SLIPA vs. 6.7% (n = 2) in the PLMA. CONCLUSIONS: The SLIPA is a useful alternative to the PLMA and have comparable efficacy and complication rates. If we acquire the skill to use, SLIPA may be considered as primary SGA devices during surgery under general anesthesia.
