Which supraglottic airway will serve my patient best?

Kristensen, Michael Seltz; Teoh, Wendy H.

doi:10.1111/anae.12856

Cited by 23 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…With most paediatric second-generation devices, the addition of a gastric access port improves their safety profile but potentially compromises the functionality of the device as a conduit for tracheal intubation. As newer SADs are released into clinical practice, it is important to evaluate their clinical performance and safety to establish superiority or equivalence to existing devices [1][2][3][4]. This is particularly true in infants and small children, where the scarcity of paediatric cadavers means many airway device manufacturers traditionally simply release 'scaled down' versions of adult SADs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A randomised comparison of the Ambu^® AuraGain^™ and the LMA^® supreme in infants and children

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryWe conducted a randomised trial in 100 children in order to compare the clinical performance of the Ambu â AuraGain TM and the LMA â Supreme * for airway maintenance during mechanical ventilation. The primary outcomes were initial and 10-min airway leak pressures. Ease, time and success rates for device and gastric tube insertion, fibreoptic grades of view, airway quality during anaesthetic maintenance, and complications were also assessed. 16-26 [12-40]) cmH 2 O, p = 0.08, respectively. Ease, time and success rates for device placement, gastric tube insertion and complications were also not significantly different. Children receiving the LMA Supreme required more airway manouevers (7 vs 1 patient, p = 0.06) to maintain a patent airway. Our results suggest that the Ambu AuraGain may be a useful alternative to the LMA Supreme, as demonstrated by comparable overall clinical performance in children.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A randomised comparison of the Ambu^® AuraGain^™ and the LMA^® supreme in infants and children

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This study was part of a sequence of studies designed to assess new airway devices [5]. We have previously stressed the importance of initial manikin studies for airway devices as multiple interventions or unsafe conditions can be explored; this view has been supported recently [9]. This is the first time that a protocol used in a manikin study [3] has been repeated in a subsequent study on patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Tulip GT^®airway versus the facemask and Guedel airway: a randomised, controlled, cross-over study by Basic Life Support-trained airway providers in anaesthetised patients

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryWe performed a randomised, controlled, cross-over study of lung ventilation by Basic Life Support-trained providers using either the Tulip GT â airway or a facemask with a Guedel airway in 60 anaesthetised patients. Successful ventilation was achieved if the provider produced an end-tidal CO 2 > 3.5 kPa and a tidal volume > 250 ml in two of the first three breaths, within 60 sec and within two attempts. Fifty-seven (95%) providers achieved successful ventilation using the Tulip GT compared with 35 (58%) using the facemask (p < 0.0001). Comparing the Tulip GT and facemask, the mean (SD) end-tidal CO 2 was 5.0 (0.7) kPa vs 2.5 (1.5) kPa, tidal volume was 494 (175) ml vs 286 (186) ml and peak inspiratory pressure was 18.3 (3.4) cmH 2 O vs 13.6 (7) cmH 2 O respectively (all p < 0.0001). Forty-seven (78%) users favoured the Tulip GT airway. These results are similar to a previous manikin study using the same protocol, suggesting a close correlation between human and manikin studies for this airway device. We conclude that the Tulip GT should be considered as an adjunct to airway management both within and outside hospitals when ventilation is being undertaken by Basic Life Support-trained airway providers.

show abstract

“…As in other areas of airway management, the crucial issues affecting the choice of device are multiple [39,40].…”

Section: Videolaryngoscopes For Awake Intubationmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘From darkness into light’: time to make awake intubation with videolaryngoscopy the primary technique for an anticipated difficult airway?

Fitzgerald¹,

Hodzovic

Smith

2015

Anaesthesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Which supraglottic airway will serve my patient best?

Cited by 23 publications

References 23 publications

A randomised comparison of the Ambu^® AuraGain^™ and the LMA^® supreme in infants and children

A randomised comparison of the Ambu^® AuraGain^™ and the LMA^® supreme in infants and children

The Tulip GT^®airway versus the facemask and Guedel airway: a randomised, controlled, cross-over study by Basic Life Support-trained airway providers in anaesthetised patients

‘From darkness into light’: time to make awake intubation with videolaryngoscopy the primary technique for an anticipated difficult airway?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Which supraglottic airway will serve my patient best?

Cited by 23 publications

References 23 publications

A randomised comparison of the Ambu® AuraGain™ and the LMA® supreme in infants and children

A randomised comparison of the Ambu® AuraGain™ and the LMA® supreme in infants and children

The Tulip GT®airway versus the facemask and Guedel airway: a randomised, controlled, cross-over study by Basic Life Support-trained airway providers in anaesthetised patients

‘From darkness into light’: time to make awake intubation with videolaryngoscopy the primary technique for an anticipated difficult airway?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

A randomised comparison of the Ambu^® AuraGain^™ and the LMA^® supreme in infants and children

A randomised comparison of the Ambu^® AuraGain^™ and the LMA^® supreme in infants and children

The Tulip GT^®airway versus the facemask and Guedel airway: a randomised, controlled, cross-over study by Basic Life Support-trained airway providers in anaesthetised patients