Home > Riviste > Minerva Anestesiologica > Fascicoli precedenti > Articles online first > Minerva Anestesiologica 2017 Nov 17



Publication history
Per citare questo articolo


Rivista di Anestesia, Rianimazione, Terapia Antalgica e Terapia Intensiva

Official Journal of the Italian Society of Anesthesiology, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care
Indexed/Abstracted in: Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 2,623



Minerva Anestesiologica 2017 Nov 17

DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.17.12254-6


lingua: Inglese

A prospective, randomised trial of the Ambu AuraGain laryngeal mask versus the LMA Protector Airway in paralysed, anaesthetised adult men

Berthold MOSER 1 , Laurent AUDIGÉ 2, Christian KELLER 1, Joseph BRIMACOMBE 3, Lukas GASTEIGER 4, Heinz R. BRUPPACHER 1

1 Department of Anaesthesiology, Schulthess Clinic, Zürich, Switzerland; 2 Research and Development Department, Schulthess Clinic, Zürich, Switzerland; 3 Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, Cairns Base Hospital, Caims, Australia; 4 Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria


BACKGROUND: We hypothesise that oropharyngeal leak pressures differ between the LMA® ProtectorTM and the AuraGainTM, two novel supraglottic airway devices offering the possibility of intubation.
METHODS: 98 male patients ASAI-II were randomly assigned to the AuraGainTM or ProtectorTM group. Oropharyngeal leak pressure was measured by incrementing cuff volume in 10 ml steps from 10 ml to 40 ml. The primary outcome was oropharyngeal leak pressure at 40 ml cuff volume. Secondary parameters such as trans-device intubation success, intubation time, the number of intubation attempts, and resistance during advancement of the endotracheal tube were determined.
RESULTS: Mean (SD) oropharyngeal leak pressures at cuff volume of 40 ml was 30.1 (6) cmH2O for the AuraGainTM and 28.2 (7) cmH2O for the LMA ProtectorTM (p = 0.142). The mean intracuff pressure for the AuraGainTM was 154 (41) cmH2O and 200 (43) cmH2O for the LMA Protector (p ≤ 0.001). The number of attempts to insert the laryngeal mask was higher for the AuraGainTM group (p = 0.002). Intubation time was lower in the AuraGainTM group (15.7 s vs. 18.5 s [ProtectorTM group]; p = 0.004), and less resistance in advancing the tracheal tube through the AuraGainTM compared to LMA ProtectorTM device (p < 0.001). There were no differences in fiberoptic placement of the endotracheal tube, the number of intubation attempts or postoperative morbidity between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Because of the higher success rate in first time insertion of the laryngeal mask and the gastric tube, respectively, as well as the lower resistance to insertion of the endotracheal tube we conclude a possible easier handling of the AuraGainTM in anaesthetised male patients.

KEY WORDS: AuraGainTM - ProtectorTM - Laryngeal mask - Fiberoptic intubation - Leak pressure

inizio pagina

Publication History

Article first published online: November 17, 2017
Manuscript accepted: November 14, 2017
Manuscript revised: October 10, 2017
Manuscript received: June 23, 2017

Per citare questo articolo

Moser B, Audigé L, Keller C, Brimacombe J, Gasteiger L, Bruppacher HR. A prospective, randomised trial of the Ambu AuraGain laryngeal mask versus the LMA Protector Airway in paralysed, anaesthetised adult men. Minerva Anestesiol 2017 Nov 17. DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.17.12254-6

Corresponding author e-mail