Home > Journals > Minerva Anestesiologica > Past Issues > Minerva Anestesiologica 2019 January;85(1) > Minerva Anestesiologica 2019 January;85(1):45-52

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE   Freefree

Minerva Anestesiologica 2019 January;85(1):45-52

DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.18.12421-7

Copyright © 2018 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

LMA Protector™ Airway: first experience with a new second generation laryngeal mask

Fabian ECKARDT 1, Jörg ENGEL 1 , Sacha T. MANN 2, Matthias MÜLLER 3, Thomas ZAJONZ 3, Christian M. KOERNER 3, Michael SANDER 3, Valesco MANN 3

1 Clinic of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine, Lahn-Dill-Kliniken, Campus Wetzlar, Wetzlar, Germany; 2 Special Clinic for Orthopedics of Marienstift Arnstadt, Arnstadt, Germany; 3 Department for Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine, and Pain Management, Giessen and Marburg University Hospital, Campus Giessen, Giessen, Germany



BACKGROUND: The LMA Protector™ Airway (The Laryngeal Mask Company Ltd., Teleflex Incorporated, Athlone, Ireland) is a new supraglottic airway promising a better seal, an improved drainage of gastric secretions and the opportunity of a simplified fiberscopy-guided tracheal intubation. The aim of this study was to present a primary evaluation of the LMA Protector in a clinical setting.
METHODS: After informed consent 50 patients, scheduled for minor/moderate surgery in supine position, were recruited. Pharyngeal seal pressures were examined in neutral position of the patients’ head and in maximum passive extension of the neck. Additionally, the fiberscopic view on the glottis was graduated and the feasibility of fiberscope guided tracheal intubation through the device was evaluated.
RESULTS: The median pharyngeal seal pressure of the LMA Protector in neutral position of the head was 34 cmH2O. Passive extension of the neck did not cause a reduction of the pharyngeal seal (median pharyngeal seal pressure: 34.7 cmH2O; P<0.039). The LMA Protector was applicable for fiberscopic tracheal intubation but is not reliable for blind tracheal intubation.
CONCLUSIONS: The LMA Protector provides a high pharyngeal seal. Uncommon for laryngeal masks its pharyngeal seal is not affected by the extension of the patient’s neck. As a second generation supraglottic airway which is also suitable for simplified fiberscopic guided tracheal intubation, the LMA Protector could be considered as a supraglottic airway of the third generation.


KEY WORDS: Airway management - Laryngeal masks - Emergency medicine

top of page