Korean Journal of Anesthesiology

The Korean Society of Anesthesiologists (대한마취통증의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The clinical effectiveness of the streamlined liner of pharyngeal airway ($SLIPA^{TM}$) compared with the laryngeal mask airway $ProSeal^{TM}$ during general anesthesia

  • Choi, Yun-Mi (Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Chung-Ang University) ;
  • Cha, Su-Man (Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Chung-Ang University) ;
  • Kang, Hyun (Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Chung-Ang University) ;
  • Baek, Chong-Wha (Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Chung-Ang University) ;
  • Jung, Yong-Hun (Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Chung-Ang University) ;
  • Woo, Young-Cheol (Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Chung-Ang University) ;
  • Kim, Jin-Yun (Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Chung-Ang University) ;
  • Koo, Gill-Hoi (Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Chung-Ang University) ;
  • Park, Sun-Gyoo (Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Chung-Ang University)
  • Received : 2010.01.29
  • Accepted : 2010.03.12
  • Published : 2010.05.30
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

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.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Chung-Ang University

References

  1. Brain AI, Verghese C, Strube PJ. The LMA 'ProSeal' - a laryngeal mask with an oesophageal vent. Br J Anaesth 2000; 84: 650-4. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/84.5.650
  2. Miller DM, Light D. Laboratory and clinical comparisons of the Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway $(SLIPA^{TM})$ with the laryngeal mask airway. Anaesthesia 2003; 58: 136-42. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2044.2003.02962.x
  3. Puri GD, Hegde HV, Jayant A, Bhukal I. Haemodynamic and Bispectral index response to insertion of the Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway (SLIPA): comparison with the laryngeal mask airway. Anaesth Intensive Care 2008; 36: 404-10.
  4. 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. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/82.2.286
  5. Joshi S, Sciacca RR, Solanki DR, Young WL, Mathru MM. A prospective evaluation of clinical tests for placement of laryngeal mask airways. Anesthesiology 1998; 89: 1141-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-199811000-00014
  6. Wilkins CJ, Cramp PG, Staples J, Stevens WC. Comparison of the anesthetic requirement for tolerance of laryngeal mask airway and endotracheal tube. Anesth Analg 1992; 75: 794-7.
  7. Markus L, Franz K. The effectiveness and patient comfort of the novel streamlined pharynx airway liner $(SLIPA^{\circledR})$ compared with the conventional laryngeal mask airway in ophthalmic surgery. Anesth Analg 2007; 104: 431-4. https://doi.org/10.1213/01.ane.0000252460.94046.7c
  8. Miller DM, Camporota L. Advantages of ProSeal and SLIPA airways over tracheal tubes for gynecological laparoscopies. Can J Anaesth 2006; 53: 188-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03021826
  9. Malik MA, Hassett P, Carney J, Higgins BD, Harte BH, Laffey JG. A comparison of the Glidescope, Pentax AWS, and Macintosh laryngoscopes when used by novice personnel: a manikin study. Can J Anaesth 2009; 56: 802–11.
  10. Reinhart DJ, Simmons G. Comparison of placement of the laryngeal mask airway with endotracheal tube by paramedics and respiratory therapists. Ann Emerg Med 1994; 24: 260-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-0644(94)70139-3
  11. Hein C, Owen H, Plummer J. Randomized comparison of the SLIPA (Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway) and the SS-LM (Soft Seal Laryngeal Mask) by medical students. Emerg Med Australas 2006; 18: 478-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-6723.2006.00894.x
  12. Fujii Y, Tanaka H, Toyooka H. Circulatory responses to laryngeal mask airway insertion or tracheal intubation in normotensive and hypertensive patients. Can J Anaesth 1995; 42: 32-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03010568
  13. Kim HS, Nam HW, Kim YH. The maximal changes of signs to laryngeal mask airway proseal TM Insertion or tracheal intubation after anesthetic induction in hypertensive patients. Korean J Anesthesiol 2002; 43: 145-9. https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2002.43.2.145
  14. Stoelting RK. Circulatory changes during direct laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation: influence of duration of laryngoscopy with or without prior lidocaine. Anesthesiology 1977; 47: 381-4. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-197710000-00012
  15. Lee JH, Kim SI, Ok SY, Kim SC. Evaluation of effect-site concentration of remifentanil for blunting hemodynamic responses to endotracheal intubation during total intravenous anesthesia using propofol. Korean J Anesthesiol 2007; 52: 269-74. https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2007.52.3.269
  16. Weiler N, Latorre F, Eberle B, Goedecke R, Heinrichs W. Respiratory mechanics, gastric insufflation pressure and air leakage of the laryngeal mask airway. Anesth Analg 1997; 84: 1025-8. https://doi.org/10.1213/00000539-199705000-00013
  17. Devitt JH, Wenstone R, Noel AG, O'Donnell MP. The laryngeal mask airway and positive-pressure ventilation. Anesthesiology 1994; 80: 550-5. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-199403000-00011
  18. Keller C, Brimacombe J. Mucosal pressure and oropharyngeal leak pressure with the Proseal laryngeal mask airway in anaesthetized paralysed patients. Br J Anaesth 2000; 85: 262-6. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/85.2.262
  19. Brimacombe J, Keller C. The Proseal laryngeal mask airway: a randomized, crossover study with the standard laryngeal mask airway in paralyzed, anesthetized patients. Anesthesiology 2000; 93: 104-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200007000-00019
  20. Gaitini L, Yanovski B, Somri M, Vaida S, Riad T, Alfery D. A comparison between the PLA Cobra and the Laryngeal Mask Airway Unique during spontaneous ventilation: a randomized prospective study. Anesth Analg 2006; 102: 631-6. https://doi.org/10.1213/01.ane.0000189098.57662.d6
  21. Brimacombe J, Keller C, Fullekrug B, Agrò F, Rosenblatt W, Dierdorf SF, et al. A multicenter study comparing the ProSeal and Classic laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized, nonparalyzed patients. Anesthesiology 2002; 96: 289–95.
  22. Asai T, Morris S. The laryngeal mask airway: its features, effects and role. Can J Anaesth 1994; 41: 930-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03010937
  23. Jeong JH, Song SO, Kim HD. Effects of proseal laryngeal mask airway on intraoperative ventilation and blood pressure, and postoperative sore throat in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Korean J Anesthesiol 2004; 46: 10-6. https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2004.46.1.10
  24. Lmb AB, Wrigley MW. The effect of nitrous oxide on laryngeal mask cuff pressure in vitro and in vivo studies. Anaesthesia 1992; 47: 320-3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.1992.tb02173.x
  25. Lim HK, Lee CS, Song JH. The comparison of laryngeal mask airway and laryngeal tube in spontaneous breathing anesthetized pediatric patients. Korean J Anesthesiol 2005; 49: 67-71. https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2005.49.1.67
  26. Brimacombe J, Clarke G, Keller C. Lingual nerve injury associated with the Proseal laryngeal mask airway: a case report and review of the literature. Br J Anaesth 2005; 95: 420-3. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aei187
  27. Greenwood J, Green N, Power G. Protein contamination of the Laryngeal Mask Airway and its relationship to re-use. Anaesth Intensive Care 2006; 34: 343-6.
  28. Richards E, Brimacombe J, Laupau W, Keller C. Protein crosscontamination during batch cleaning and autoclaving of the Proseal laryngeal mask airway. Anaesthesia 2006; 61: 431-3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2006.04550.x

Cited by

  1. 3가지 성문위기도기(Supraglottic airway device)의 삽관 용이성과 삽관시간 비교 - 마네킨을 이용한 연구- vol.16, pp.2, 2012, https://doi.org/10.14408/kjems.2012.16.2.023
  2. Effective Dose of Remifentanil for Control of Haemodynamic Response to Insertion of the Streamlined Liner of the Pharyngeal Airway vol.20, pp.4, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1177/102490791302000404
  3. Comparative study between LMA-Proseal(TM) and Air-Q® Blocker for ventilation in adult eye trauma patients vol.30, pp.3, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egja.2014.01.009
  4. A comparative evaluation of different supraglottic ventilatory devices during general anesthesia with controlled ventilation: A pilot study vol.30, pp.4, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egja.2014.05.003
  5. Comparison of the Disposable Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway and the Disposable I-gel in Anaesthetized, Paralyzed Adults: A Randomized Prospective Study vol.2015, pp.None, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/971059
  6. Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway: Randomised Comparison of Size Selection Strategies with Regard to Patient Height versus Thyroid Cartilage Width vol.22, pp.5, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1177/102490791502200507
  7. Comparison of Five 2nd-Generation Supraglottic Airway Devices for Airway Management Performed by Novice Military Operators vol.2015, pp.None, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/201898
  8. Comparison of streamlined liner of the pharynx airway (SLIPA™) and laryngeal mask airway: a systematic review and meta‐analysis vol.70, pp.5, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.13035
  9. Safety and clinical usefulness of supraglottic airway device vol.58, pp.10, 2010, https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2015.58.10.905
  10. Postoperative sore throat: a systematic review vol.71, pp.6, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.13438
  11. Comparison of the streamlined liner of the pharynx airway (SLIPATM) with the I-gelTMin paralyzed, anesthetized patients vol.11, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.17085/apm.2016.11.3.299
  12. 융복합적 기술이 적용된 성문위기구들의 삽관용이성 비교 vol.14, pp.12, 2010, https://doi.org/10.14400/jdc.2016.14.12.369
  13. Preheating of streamlined liner of pharyngeal airway (SLIPA) reduced the related complications: a randomized control study vol.31, pp.3, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-016-9875-z