Comparison of streamlined liner of the pharynx airway (SLIPA TM ) with the laryngeal mask airway Proseal TM for lower abdominal laparoscopic surgeries in paralyzed, anesthetized patients

• Main Authors: Ashraf Abualhassan Abdellatif, Monaz Abdulrahman Ali
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2011-01-01
• Series: Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia
• Subjects: Laparoscopic surgery; proseal lma; streamlined liner of the pharynx airway; supraglottic airway devices
• Online Access: http://www.saudija.org/article.asp?issn=1658-354X;year=2011;volume=5;issue=3;spage=270;epage=276;aulast=Abdellatif
• ISSN: 1658-354X

Context: Supraglottic airway devices have been used as an alternative to tracheal intubation during laparoscopic surgery. Aims: The study was designed to compare the efficacy of Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway (SLIPA) for positive pressure ventilation and postoperative complications with the Laryngeal Mask Airway ProSeal (PLMA) for patients undergoing lower abdominal laparoscopies under general anesthesia with controlled ventilation. Settings and Design: Prospective, crossover randomized controlled trial performed on patients undergoing lower abdominal laparoscopic surgeries. Methods: A total of 120 patients undergoing lower abdominal laparoscopic surgeries were randomly allocated into two equal groups; PLMA and SLIPA groups. Number of intubation attempts, insertion time, ease of insertion, and fiberoptic bronchoscopic view were recorded. Lung mechanics data were collected 5 minutes after securing the airway, then after abdominal insufflation. Blood traces and regurgitation were checked for; postoperative sore throat and other complications were recorded. Statistical Analysis: Arithmetic mean and standard deviation values were calculated and statistical analyses were performed for each group. Independent sample t-test was used to compare continuous variables exhibiting normal distribution, and Chi-squared test for noncontinuous variables. P value <0.05 was considered significant. Results: Insertion time, first insertion success rate, and ease of insertion were comparable in both groups. Fiberoptic bronchoscopic view was significantly better and epiglottic downfolding was significantly lower in SLIPA group. Sealing pressure and lung mechanics were similar. Gastric distension was not observed in both groups. Postoperative sore throat was significantly higher in PACU in PLMA group. Blood traces on the device were significantly more in SLIPA group. Conclusions: SLIPA can be used as a useful alternative to PLMA in patients undergoing lower abdominal laparoscopic surgery with muscle relaxant and controlled ventilation.