Dokuz Eylül University, School of Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation
Izmi̇r, Narlıdere, 35320, Turkey (Türkiye)
NCT Number: NCT02197377
With an aging population a prevalence of edentulous patients increased above 60 % among individuals aged ≥65 yr. Face mask ventilation of these edentulous patients is often difficult because of the inadequate fitting of the standard mask to the face. In addition, because of a reduction in muscle tone under general anesthesia, the air space in the oropharynx is reduced, and posterior displacement of the tongue, soft palate and epiglottis tend to close the airway. The laryngeal mask airway (LMA) provides a better alternative to the standard face mask if the facial contours of the patient are not suited to the standard face mask. It is more difficult to perform bag-mask ventilation in edentulous patients than in patients with intact dentition. The laryngeal mask airway (LMA) provides a better alternative to the standard face mask if the facial contours of the patient are not suited to the standard face mask.
We aimed to compare the routinely used laryngeal mask airway in our clinic, the LMA Unique™ with the newly released LMA Supreme™ in edentulous elderly patients for the success in first attempt insertion, ease and time of insertion, and oropharyngeal leak pressure.
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me65 year and older
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Izmi̇r, Narlıdere, 35320, Turkey (Türkiye)
After Ethical Committee approval and written informed consent were obtained, sixty edentulous patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA) grade I-III, aged over 65 years) undergoing elective surgery were included into the study. Patients with dentures had to remove their dentures before surgery at the ward. The supraglottic airway device was inserted into each patient in a random order. A statistician independent of the clinical investigators generated the randomization sequence using a computerized program. Patients were excluded if they had a known or predicted difficult airway, a body mass index > 35 kg/m2, or were at risk of aspiration. All cases were conducted by anesthetists who had experience over 5 years of LMA insertion.
Demographic parameters, Mallampati classification and the duration of surgery were recorded. Patients were routinely monitored using ECG, non-invasive blood pressure measurement, pulse oximetry and end-tidal carbon dioxide tension. Depth of anesthesia was monitored with bispectral index (BIS).
Patients were premedicated with midazolam 0.02 mg/kg when venous access was obtained. After 3 min preoxygenation with 100 % oxygen via face mask, anesthesia was induced with fentanyl 1-2 µg/kg and propofol 1-2 mg/kg. When the BIS value was 40-60 the predetermined supraglottic airway device was inserted according to the manufacturer's recommendations. The supraglottic airway devices were deflated fully before insertion. Size 4 LMA was used for those with a weight of 50-70 kg and size 5 LMA for those between 70-100 kg. After insertion, each device was inflated with a hand-held airway manometer (Rusch, Germany) to an intracuff pressure of 60 cm H2O.
An effective airway was defined as the presence of normal thoracoabdominal movement and a square-wave end-tidal carbon dioxide trace. General anesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane, O2 and N2O.
Insertion time was defined as the time from picking up the airway device until connection to the airway circuit. Ease of insertion was graded by the attending anesthesiologist as easy, fair or difficult. If after three attempts insertion was still not successful, the other device was used. If insertion of the other device also failed the patient was endotracheally intubated.
Before the oropharyngeal leak test was carried out, the face of the patient was covered so that the observer was blinded to the airway device. The oropharyngeal leak pressure was determined by transiently stopping ventilation and closing the adjustable pressure-limiting valve with a fresh gas flow of 3 L/min until airway pressure reached a steady state and a voice of leakage was heard. The airway pressure was not allowed to exceed 40 cm H2O.
After successful placement of the LMA Supreme™, a 12 French gauge gastric catheter was inserted via the gastric channel.
Any episode of hypoxemia (SpO2 < 90%), aspiration or regurgitation,bronchospasm and airway obstruction were documented. After removal of the LMA, it was examined for the presence of visible blood.
In the postanesthesia care unit, a research assistant, who was blinded to the group allocation, interviewed the patients using a predetermined questionnaire to collect data on the postoperative pharyngolaryngeal adverse events. The presence or absence of sore throat, dysphonia and dysphagia was assessed at 1 and 24 h postoperatively.
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
The supraglottic airway devices were deflated fully before insertion. After placement an effective airway was defined as the presence of normal thoracoabdominal movement and a square-wave end-tidal carbon dioxide trace.
Other names: Laryngeal Mask Airway Unique, LMA Unique (The Laryngeal Mask Company Limited, Singapore)
The supraglottic airway devices were deflated fully before insertion.The supraglottic airway devices were deflated fully before insertion. After placement an effective airway was defined as the presence of normal thoracoabdominal movement and a square-wave end-tidal carbon dioxide trace.
Other names: Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme, Teleflex, The Laryngeal Mask Company Limited, Singapore
Time frame: after anaesthesia induction
Edentulous elderly patients for the success in first attempt insertion, ease and time of insertion (second).
Time frame: before surgery
The aim of this study is to compare on the oropharyngeal leak pressure in LMA Unique™ and LMA Supreme™ applications
Dokuz Eylul University
Other
Comparison of The Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme™ Versus Unique™ in Edentulous Geriatric Patients
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT07333703
Anaesthesia, Lumbosacral Spinal Stenosis
Samsun, Turkey (Türkiye)
View Trial DetailsNCT06976047
Anaesthesia, Anxiety
Damascus, Syria
View Trial DetailsNCT06724341
Anaesthesia, Anxiety
Damascus, Syrian Arab Republic, Syria
View Trial DetailsNCT04343807
Agnosia, Anaesthesia
Karachi, Sindh, Pakistan
View Trial Details