Abstract

Context: Aims: To compare two supra glottic airway devices, Ambu auragain & proseal LMA in terms of their working performance & insertion characteristics during general anesthesia in patient undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery.

Settings and Design: After written informed consent, 60 patients of ASA I & II, aged 18 to 60 years, of either gender posted for laparoscopic surgery under general anesthesia were included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups of 30 patients each.

Methods and Material: In group A: airway was secured with Ambu Auragain & in group P: with Proseal LMA for general anesthesia. Working performance (in terms of oropharyngeal leak pressure) and insertion characteristics (insertion time, manipulations of device, number of attempts) were recorded at the time of induction. Haemodymanics (Heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure, SpO2) & complications (if any) were recorded perioperatively.

Statistical Analysis used: Student t test for quantitative data & Chi square test for qualitative data.

Results: Oropharyngeal leak pressure was significantly higher & insertion time was significantly less in group A compared to group P (P<0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in insertion characteristics, demographic data, haemodynamics, ease of orogastric tube & post operative complications in both the groups. Conclusions: AmbuAuragain provides higher oropharyngeal leak pressure with lesser insertion time compared to ProSeal LMA.>>0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in insertion characteristics, demographic data, haemodynamics, ease of orogastric tube & post operative complications in both the groups.

Conclusions: AmbuAuragain provides higher oropharyngeal leak pressure with lesser insertion time compared to ProSeal LMA.

• 1.   David T. Wong MD, Alister Ooi MBBS, Fanzca, Kawal P. Singh MD, Amelie Dallaire MD, Vina Meliana MBBS, FANZCA, Jason Lau BMSc, Frances Chung MBBS, FRCPC, Mandeep Singh MD, FRCPC & Jean Wong MD, FRCPC. Comparison of oropharyngeal leak pressure between the Ambu® AuraGain™ and the LMA® Supreme™ supraglottic airways: a randomized-controlled trial, Can J Anesth, 2018 Jul;65(7):797-805.
• 2.   Kriti Singh and Pavan Gurha Comparative evaluation of Ambu AuraGain™ with ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy, Indian J Anesth. 2017 Jun; 61(6): 469–474.
• 3.   Weber U, Oghuz R, Potura LA, Kimberger O, Kober A, Tschernko E. Comparison of the I-gel and the LMA-Unique laryngeal mask airway in patients with mild to moderate obesity during elective short-term surgery. Anesthesia 2011; 66: 481-7.
• 4.   The European Resuscitation Council (ERC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) in collaboration with the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR): International Guidelines 2000 for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiac Care. An International Consensus on Science. Resuscitation. 2000; 6:29–71.
• 5.   Peppard SB, Dickens JH. Laryngeal injury following short-term intubation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1983; 92:327–30.
• 6.   Cork RC, Depa RM, Standen JR. Prospective comparison of use of the laryngeal mask and endotracheal tube for ambulatory surgery. AnesAnalg. 1994; 79:719–27.
• 7.   Ronald D Miller, Textbook of Miller’s anesthesia,8th edition.
• 8.   Jayashree S. Laryngeal masks airway and its variants. Indian J Anesth. 2005; 49:275–80.

Data Sharing Statement

Funding