Safety and efficacy of laryngeal mask airway Supreme versus laryngeal mask airway ProSeal: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The Supreme laryngeal mask airway (LMA) is a new single-use polyvinyl chloride supraglottic device that combines the functionality of the ProSeal and Fastrach airways. High oropharyngeal leak pressures are important as they indicate airway protection, feasibility of positive pressure ventilation and likelihood of successful LMA placement. The oropharyngeal leak pressure of the LMA Supreme is not well established versus the LMA ProSeal. This study was designed to compare the safety and efficacy of the LMA Supreme versus the LMA ProSeal in elective ambulatory procedures. METHOD: Hospital ethics board approval was obtained. One hundred and five patients were consented and randomly allocated to LMA Supreme or ProSeal groups. Anaesthesia was induced with intravenous propofol 2-3 mg kg(-1) and fentanyl 1-2 microg kg(-1) and maintained with desflurane in an air-oxygen mixture. Anaesthesiologists with more than 5 years of experience performed all of the LMA insertions. Manometry was used to standardize intracuff pressure at 60 cmH2O. The primary outcome was the oropharyngeal leak pressure. Secondary outcomes were the time and number of attempts for insertion, ease of insertion and the anaesthesiologist's satisfaction score of the airway device. The success on first attempt insertion was measured. Patients were interviewed postoperatively for any pharyngolaryngeal adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 99 patients were analysed for the primary outcome. The baseline demographic data for both groups were comparable. The mean oropharyngeal leak pressure with the LMA Supreme was 21 +/- 5 cmH2O (95% confidence interval 20-22). This was significantly lower than that of the LMA ProSeal, 25 +/- 6 cmH2O (95% confidence interval 23-27; P<0.001). The success rate of the first attempt insertion was higher for the LMA Supreme than for the LMA ProSeal (98 and 88%, respectively; P=0.04). There was no difference in the median time taken for insertion with the LMA Supreme versus the LMA ProSeal: 26 s (interquartile range 23-45) versus 30 s (interquartile range 20-38), respectively (P=0.16). The ease of insertion, postoperative pharyngolaryngeal adverse events, patient satisfaction scores and anaesthesiologist's satisfaction scores were comparable in both groups. There were no complications of aspiration or nerve injuries. CONCLUSION: The LMA Supreme has lower oropharyngeal leak pressures than the LMA ProSeal. The success of the first attempt insertion was higher for the LMA Supreme. The LMA Supreme is a safe, efficacious and easy-to-use disposable supraglottic airway device in elective ambulatory procedures. The higher rate of success on first attempt insertion may make it more suitable as an airway rescue device.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".