Guided vs. non-guided insertion of Ambu AuraGain™ in edentulous patients

Gasteiger, Lukas; Tauber, Helmuth; Velik‐Salchner, Corinna; Thoma, Matthias; Fantin, Raffaella; Pustilnik, Vitaliy; Neururer, Sabrina; Keller, Christian; Moser, Berthold

doi:10.1007/s00101-021-00914-x

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With introduction of the ProSeal TM LMA as the first second-generation supraglottic airway (SGA) device, the use of supraglottic airways became considerably safer, thanks to an oesophageal drain that reduces the risk for gastric insufflation and regurgitation, as well as an improved airway seal that allows much higher airway pressures [2][3][4]. In the meantime, many different types of second-generation SGAs have been put on the market and assessed for their safety and performance in patients undergoing general anaesthesia for elective surgery [5][6][7][8][9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the New SingularityTM Air versus Ambu® Aura GainTM: A Randomized, Crossover Mannequin Study

Gasteiger

Hornung

Woyke

et al. 2022

JCM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This randomised crossover mannequin study aimed to compare the insertion time for the newly developed SingularityTM Air and the Ambu® AuraGainTM. The SingularityTM Air includes a bendable tube in order to allow optimal passform. Methods: Fifty anaesthetists with a minimum of 100 supraglottic airway device insertions were recruited and randomly assigned to start either with the SingularityTM Air or with the Ambu® AuraGainTM. Participants watched a tutorial video the day before the assessment and received a standardized introduction immediately before the assessment. The primary outcome was the time for successful insertion. Secondary parameters were the overall insertion success rate, the numbers of insertion attempts (maximum three), the glottic view through a flexible bronchoscope, and the success rate for gastric tube insertion. Results: Fifty participants were eventually recruited and randomly assigned to insert both devices according to the randomization. The insertion time was 24 s for SingularityTM Air as compared to 20 s for Ambu® AuraGainTM (p < 0.001). Overall insertion rate was 92% for the SingularityTM Air as compared to 100% for the Ambu® AuraGainTM (p could not be derived as one variable is a constant). The primary insertion success rate was better for the Ambu® AuraGainTM than for the SingularityTM Air (94% versus 68%; p: 0.002, respectively). Conclusion: The time for successful insertion and the insertion success rate for the newly developed SingularityTM Air is inferior to that for the Ambu® AuraGainTM.

show abstract