Comparative study between LMA-Proseal™ and Air-Q® Blocker for ventilation in adult eye trauma patients

• Main Authors: Maha M.I. Youssef, Mona Lofty, Yahya Hammad, Ezzat Elmenshawy
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Taylor & Francis Group 2014-07-01
• Series: Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia
• Subjects: Air Q blocker; LMA-Proseal; Eye trauma patients; Supraglottic device; Rescue ventilation
• Online Access: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110184914000105

Background: The disposable Air-Q® Blocker Masked Laryngeal Airway (MLA) is a new supraglottic device used for intubation, rescue ventilation, and for esophageal suctioning. Laryngeal Mask Airway-Proseal™ is a well known supraglottic device in clinical practice. The aim of the study was to compare Air-Q® Blocker against LMA-Proseal™ as supraglottic devices for ventilation. Methods: Sixty adult healthy patients scheduled for eye trauma surgeries under general anesthesia were randomly allocated into 2 groups; Group A (n = 30), where Air-Q® Blocker is used, Group P (n = 30), where LMA-Proseal™ is used. The success rate and time of their insertion were measured. Laryngeal view grading was assessed by fiberoptic bronchoscope. Ease of gastric tube placement and any post-operative complications (airway edema, sore throat or hoarseness) were also measured. Stress response of device insertion was measured using the vital sign measurements. Results: Success of insertion at 1st attempt was (90%) in Group A and (83.3%) in Group P. Insertion time was 18.37 ± 3.77 s in Group (A), while 23.43 ± 3.54 s in Group P, (p < 0.001). Airway seal pressure was comparable in both groups. Full view of vocal cords amounted to (76.7%) in Group A, and (56.7%) in Group P respectively. 1st Attempt Gastric Tube Insertion was (93.3%) in Group A, and (83.3%) in Group P. comparison of previous data in both groups showed no statistical significant differences between them. The incidence of postoperative complications and post insertion hemodynamic stress response was statistically nonsignificant when compared between the 2 groups. Conclusion: The Air-Q® Blocker demonstrated to be remarkably good as a ventilatory device, with adequate airway seal pressure, and improved facilitation of gastric tube insertion compared to LMA-Proseal™. Minimal pressor response was achieved after insertion with no statistical significance.