International Journal of Medical Anesthesiology
  • Printed Journal
  • Refereed Journal
  • Peer Reviewed Journal
P-ISSN: 2664-3766
E-ISSN: 2664-3774
Journal is inviting manuscripts for its coming issue. Contact us for more details.

International Journal of Medical Anesthesiology

2018, Vol. 1, Issue 2, Part A
to compare Proseal laryngeal mask airway & supreme laryngeal mask airway as ventilatory devices


Author(s): Dr. Sadashiv Anand

Abstract: Background: The present study was conducted to compare Proseal laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) and Supreme laryngeal mask airway (SLMA) as ventilatory devices during general anaesthesia. Materials & Methods: The present study was conducted on 30 patients of both genders undergoing elective surgery. Patients were divided into 2 groups of 15 each. Group I patients were given Proseal laryngeal mask airway and group II were given supreme laryngeal mask airway. In both groups, insertion times, number of insertion attempts, Haemodynamic response to insertion, ease of insertion of airway device and gastric tube, oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) and pharyngolaryngeal morbidity were assessed. Results: In group I (cm H2O), OLP1 was 34.2 and in group II was 28.4, OLP2 in group I was 34.2 and in group II was 28.5, OLP3 in group I was 34.3 and in group II was 28.6. The difference was significant (P< 0.05). Number of attempt in group I and II was 1, insertion time was 24.5 seconds in group I and 15.6 seconds in group II, 6 in group I and 12 in group II required jaw thrust. There was ease of insertion of Ryle’s tube in both groups. Insertion time NG tube in group I was 8.2 and in group II was 10.4. The difference was significant (P< 0.05). Conclusion: There were better results with Proseal laryngeal mask airway as compared to supreme laryngeal mask airway.

DOI: 10.33545/26643766.2018.v1.i2a.9

Pages: 10-12 | Views: 452 | Downloads: 248

Download Full Article: Click Here
How to cite this article:
Dr. Sadashiv Anand. to compare Proseal laryngeal mask airway & supreme laryngeal mask airway as ventilatory devices. Int J Med Anesthesiology 2018;1(2):10-12. DOI: 10.33545/26643766.2018.v1.i2a.9
International Journal of Medical Anesthesiology