Jump to navigation Teleflex | LMA - Better by Design  Clinical evidence Evidence Search Select product You are here Home › Evidence › Sparing the larynx during gynecological laparoscopy: a randomized trial comparing the LMA Supreme™ and the ETT Sparing the larynx during gynecological laparoscopy: a randomized trial comparing the LMA Supreme™ and the ETT AUTHORS Abdi W. et al. PUBLICATION Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2010; 54 (2): 141-146. SUMMARY A study to compare the performance of the LMA Supreme™ and an endotracheal tube in patients undergoing elective gynaecological pelvic laparoscopy requiring anaesthesia The average time to airway placement and weaning was shorter in patients who received the LMA Supreme™ versus the endotracheal tube The LMA Supreme™ was associated with less post-operative pharyngolaryngeal morbidity than an endotracheal tube in patients undergoing routine gynaecological laparoscopic procedures OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance of the LMA Supreme™ and an endotracheal tube in patients undergoing elective gynaecological pelvic laparoscopy requiring anaesthesia METHOD: This was a prospective, randomised, single-blind study undertaken in American Society of Anesthesiologists class 1 or 2 adult female patients with normal airways Patients were randomised to receive airway management with either the LMA Supreme™ or an endotracheal tube Outcomes of interest were Pharyngolaryngeal discomfort in the post-operative period Ventilation efficiency The difficulty of airway management was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) ranging from 0 (no difficulty) to 100 (impossible) The intensity of pharyngolaryngeal symptoms was measured using a numerical rating scale (NRS) ranging from 0 (no discomfort/pain) to 100 (extreme discomfort/ maximal imaginable pain) All surgical procedures were performed by a single surgeon who was blinded to the airway management technique used RESULTS: Patients were randomised to receive the LMA Supreme™ (n=69) or an endotracheal tube (n=69) The demographic characteristics of the two groups of patients were similar (mean age 33 years; mean body weight 66 kg) Ventilation was successful in all patients, regardless of whether they received the LMA Supreme™ or an endotracheal tube The maximum peak airway pressure during anaesthesia was 25 and 23 cm H2O in patients fitted with the LMA Supreme™ and an endotracheal tube, respectively The average time to airway placement and weaning was shorter in patients who received the LMA Supreme™ versus an endotracheal tube (Figure 1) Figure 1. Duration of airway placement and weaning in patients who received the LMA Supreme™ and an endotracheal tube (data are shown as mean ± standard deviation) † Time from injection of atracurium to definitive ventilation through the airway; ‡ Time from the last trocar to airway removal The median VAS score for airway management difficulty was 5 (range 0-25) in the LMA Supreme™ group and 5 (range 0-40) in the endotracheal tube group The incidences of nausea and vomiting and the need for analgesia in the post-operative period were similar in both patient groups The incidences of dysphagia, hoarseness and sore throat were significantly (p<0.05) lower in patients who received the LMA Supreme™ versus an endotracheal tube (Table 1) Assessments in the post-anaesthesia care unit showed that patients who received the LMA Supreme™ versus the endotracheal tube reported a significantly (p<0.05) lower intensity of dysphagia (mean NRS score 7 vs. 15) and hoarseness (mean NRS score 3 vs. 19) In the ward prior to discharge, the intensity of hoarseness remained significantly lower in patients who received the LMA Supreme™ versus the endotracheal tube (mean NRS score 1 vs. 10; p<0.05) Two patients in the endotracheal tube group complained of hoarseness at an evaluation visit at day 5-7 (compared with no patients treated with the LMA Supreme™) CONCLUSIONS: The LMA Supreme™ and an endotracheal tube were similarly effective ventilation devices in patients undergoing routine gynaecological laparoscopic procedures The incidence and intensity of post-operative pharyngolaryngeal morbidity was reduced in patients who received the LMA Supreme™ versus an endotracheal tube Featured evidence 📖 LMA Supreme™, i-gel™ and Laryngeal Tube Suction™ – A prospective, randomized comparative evaluation using fiberoptic and color indicator assessment techniques 📖 Comparison of guided insertion of the LMA ProSeal™ vs the i-gel™ 📖 Magnetic resonance imaging study of the in vivo position of the extraglottic airway devices i-gel™ and LMA-Supreme™ in anaesthetized human volunteers 📖 The LMA Supreme™ – a pilot study 📖 Evaluation of the LMA Supreme™ in 100 non-paralysed patients 📖 LMA Supreme™ – a new single-use LMA™ with gastric access: a report on its clinical efficacy 📖 The Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme for positive pressure ventilation during laparoscopic cholecystectomy Evidence by category Atomization LMA® Airway Management™ Share this Contact Teleflex Medical Europe Ltd. IDA Business and Technology Park Dublin Road, Athlone Co. Westmeath, Ireland Phone: +353 (0)9 06 46 08 00 Fax: +353 (0)14 37 07 73 Email: orders.intl@teleflex.com Company notices Intellectual Property for LMA® Airway Management™ Products Intellectual Property for Atomization Products Intellectual Property for Teleflex® VaxINator™ Privacy policy The following are trademarks or registered trademarks of Teleflex Incorporated or its affiliates, in the US and/or other countries: LMA Airway Management Teleflex, the Teleflex logo, LMA, LMA Airway Management, LMA Better by Design, LMA Classic, LMA Classic Excel, LMA Evolution Curve, LMA Fastrach, LMA Flexible, LMA Gastro, LMA Guardian, LMA ProSeal, ProSeal, LMA Protector, LMA Supreme, LMA T-Bag, LMA T-Bag Plus, LMA Unique, LMA Unique Evo, Unique Evo and Cuff Pilot are trademarks or registered trademarks of Teleflex Incorporated or its affiliates in the US and/or other countries. Atomization Teleflex, the Teleflex logo, MAD, MADdy, MADgic, MADgic Airway, MAD Nasal and MADomizer are trademarks or registered trademarks of Teleflex Incorporated or its affiliates in the US and/or other countries. Except as otherwise noted, Teleflex Incorporated or its affiliates is the owner of all the trademarks referred to on this website. All brands and names are the property of their respective owners. © 2019 Teleflex Incorporated. All rights reserved. Website by Mogul.