Indian Journal of Anaesthesia  
About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Past Issues | Instructions
Home | Login  | Users Online: 1753  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size    


ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 61  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 469-474

Comparative evaluation of Ambu AuraGain™ with ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy


Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre, New Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
Kriti Singh
Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre, 1, Tughlakabad Institutional Area, MB Road, New Delhi - 110 062
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ija.IJA_163_17

Rights and Permissions

Background and Aims: Second generation supraglottic airways are increasingly being used in surgical patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Preventing aspiration at higher airway pressures may be at the expense of a higher cuff pressure which can impair mucosal perfusion. We attempted to elucidate whether Ambu AuraGain™ (AAU) would provide a higher oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) with a lower mucosal pressure in comparison to ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway (PLMA). Methods: This was a prospective randomised study involving sixty patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anaesthesia, using either AAU (Group AAU [n = 30]) or PLMA (Group PLMA [n = 30]) for elective ventilation. Primary outcome measure was the OLP. Number of insertion attempts, ease of insertion, time required for placement and calculated pharyngeal mucosal pressure were the secondary outcome measures. Data were analysed using Student's t-test and Chi-square test. Results: No significant difference in the OLP was noted in both groups. The ease of insertion and success rate at first attempt was similar between the groups. Time taken for insertion in Group AAU was longer than Group PLMA (13.57 ± 1.94 vs. 11.60 ± 2.22 s). The calculated pharyngeal mucosal pressures were lower with Group AAU than Group PLMA for all 3 sizes. The minimum cuff pressure and minimum cuff volume required to prevent leak were found similar in both groups. Conclusion: AAU provides adequate sealing pressures and effective ventilation with lower calculated pharyngeal mucosal pressure, compared to PLMA.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3875    
    Printed66    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded648    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal