Comparison of the AMBU® Laryngeal Mask and the LMA Classic in Anaesthetised, Spontaneously Breathing Patients

Abstract

There may be a role for single-use laryngeal mask airways with concerns about inability to adequately sterilise laryngeal mask airways to eradicate prion proteins. A single-blinded prospective randomised controlled trial was conducted to compare the clinical performance of the single-use AMBU ® LMA with the reuseable LMA Classic. There was no difference in time to insertion, successful insertion at first attempt, oropharyngeal leak pressure, haemodynamic response to insertion or complications of placement. The AMBU ® LMA was easier to insert. There was a suggestion of reduced postoperative sore throat and pharyngeal trauma for the AMBU ® LMA group. The AMBU ® LMA is a viable alternative to the LMA Classic for airway management in spontaneously breathing patients.

Randomised Comparison of the AMBU AuraOnce Laryngeal Mask and the LMA Unique Laryngeal Mask Airway in Spontaneously Breathing Adults

“…Both devices performed similarly in establishing an adequate airway with first insertion (success rates AMBU 85%, LMAU 82%) and this is similar to other recent studies [10, 11, 13, 20]. There was a single failure within the AMBU group when there was easy insertion but inability to ventilate [10, 20].…”

“…There was a single failure within the AMBU group when there was easy insertion but inability to ventilate [10, 20]. Ng and Shariffuddin have hypothesized that these failures may be due to epiglottic downfolding on insertion of the AMBU [10, 20]. This is further supported effective ventilation following insertion with an LMAC, which has epiglottic aperture bars to prevent such an occurrence.…”

The AMBU® Aura-i™ Laryngeal Mask and LMA Supreme™: A Randomized Trial of Clinical Performance and Fibreoptic Positioning in Unparalysed, Anaesthetised Patients by Novices

“…Secondary outcomes were successful insertion at first attempt, oropharyngeal leak pressure, haemodynamic changes on insertion, and complications of LMA placements. Sample size was based on earlier studies of AMBU and LMA insertion in nonparalysed, anaesthetized patients [3, 4]. Prospective power analysis showed that a sample size of 50 patients per group would be required to detect a 30% difference in the primary outcome at a significance level of 5% and power of 80%.…”

Comparison of classic laryngeal mask airway with Ambu laryngeal mask for tracheal tube exchange: A prospective randomized controlled study

“…All these features make its insertion easier than CLMA™. [14] Furthermore, unlike CLMA™ it lacks epiglottic aperture bars.…”

“…With an increasing concern for transmission of prion diseases, use of single devices like ALM™ is being advocated. [1415] Furthermore, we wanted to investigate that whether unaided placement of ALM™ would have any advantage over finger aided placement of CLMA™ in terms of post-ETT/LM exchange haemodynamic response, ease of placement, fibre-optic view, coughing/bucking, and post-operative sore throat.…”