Articles Vol. 63 No. chuyên đề 1-BV Nhi Thái Bình (2022) 16/09/2022

COMPARISON OF THE EFFICACY OF AIR-Q LARYNGEAL MASK AIRWAY AND CLASSIC LARYNGEAL MASK AIRWAY USED FOR PEDIATRIC GENERAL ANESTHESIA

Tran Xuan Thinh1,2, Phan Thang1,2, Bui Thi Thuy Nga1,2, Nguyen Van Minh1,2
1 Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy
2 Trường Đại học Y Dược Huế
Corresponding author: txthinh@huemed-univ.edu.vn
DOI: 10.52163/yhc.v63iChuyên đề tháng 9.410
12 Views
0 Downloads
Keywords
Laryngeal mask airway, air-Q, classic, pediatric anesthesia.
Abstract

Background: Classic laryngeal mask airway has been widely used in pediatric anesthesia.
The study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the air-Q Laryngeal Mask Airway (aLMA)
and the classic Laryngeal Mask Airway (cLMA) in anesthetized children.
Methods: Sixty healthy children, ASA 1 or 2, who were scheduled for elective surgery,
in which the use of the aLMA (air-Q group) or the cLMA (classic group) for airway
maintenance, were enrolled in this randomized study. All patients of the two groups received
the same protocol of general anesthesia. Primary outcome measures were the successful rate,
the ease and time for successful insertion, and airway leak pressures; the secondary outcome
was the relative complications.
Results: There were no differences in the demographic data between the two groups. The
success rate of insertion in the first attempt of the air-Q group was higher than the classic
group (93,3% vs 83,3%, p < 0,05). The rate of very easy and easy insertion in the air-Q
group was higher than in the classic group (93,3% vs 70%, p < 0,05). The insertion time of
the air-Q group was shorter than the classic group (p < 0.05). The difference in the airway
leak pressure between the air-Q group and the classic group was statistically significant
(23,8 + 3,9 cmH2O vs 20,5 + 4,3 cmH2O, p < 0,05). There were no patients with serious
complications in both groups, the less serious complications such as cough, hoarseness, sore
throat and blood sputum were found at a low rate and did not differ between the two groups.
Conclusions: The air-Q LMA had a highly successful rate of insertion, easier and shorter
insertion, and higher airway leak pressure than classic LMA. It suggests that the air-Q LMA
could be used as a suitable alternative to the classic LMA in children.

References
[1]
Phuong VH, Trang DTH, Thanh LTD et Google Scholar
[2]
al., The effectiveness of airway control and Google Scholar
[3]
oropharyngeal injury of I-gel compared with Google Scholar
[4]
laryngeal mask classic, Journal of Medical Google Scholar
[5]
Research, 2020; 134 (10), 22-27. Google Scholar
[6]
Ahn EJ, Choi GJ, Kang H et al., Comparative Google Scholar
[7]
Efficacy of the Air-Q Intubating Laryngeal Google Scholar
[8]
Airway during General Anesthesia in Google Scholar
[9]
Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review Google Scholar
[10]
and Meta-Analysis, BioMed Research Google Scholar
[11]
International, 2016, 1–11. Google Scholar
[12]
Brain AI, The development of the Laryngeal Google Scholar
[13]
Mask--a brief history of the invention, early Google Scholar
[14]
clinical studies and experimental work from Google Scholar
[15]
which the Laryngeal Mask evolved. Eur J Google Scholar
[16]
Anaesthesiol Suppl, 1991; 4, 5–17. Google Scholar
[17]
Ha SH, Kim MS, Suh J et al., Self-pressurized Google Scholar
[18]
air-Q® intubating laryngeal airway versus Google Scholar
[19]
the LMA® ClassicTM: a randomized clinical Google Scholar
[20]
trial. Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth, 2018, 65(5), Google Scholar
[21]
T.X. Thinh et al. / Vietnam Journal of Community Medicine, Special Issue (2022) 108-115115 Google Scholar
[22]
–550. Google Scholar
[23]
Hendinezhad MA, Babaei A, Gholipour Google Scholar
[24]
BA et al., Comparing Supraglottic Airway Google Scholar
[25]
Devices for Airway Management During Google Scholar
[26]
Surgery in Children: A Review of Literature. Google Scholar
[27]
J Pediatr Rev, 2018, (3), 89–98. Google Scholar
[28]
Jagannathan N, Sohn LE, Mankoo R et al., A Google Scholar
[29]
randomized crossover comparison between Google Scholar
[30]
the Laryngeal Mask Airway-UniqueTM and Google Scholar
[31]
the air-Q Intubating Laryngeal Airway in Google Scholar
[32]
children*: Crossover comparison between the Google Scholar
[33]
air-Q ILA and LMA-U in children. Pediatric Google Scholar
[34]
Anesthesia, 2012; 22(2), 161–167. Google Scholar
[35]
Kleine-Brueggeney M, Gottfried A, Nabecker Google Scholar
[36]
S et al., Pediatric supraglottic airway devices in Google Scholar
[37]
clinical practice: A prospective observational Google Scholar
[38]
study. BMC Anesthesiol, 2017; 17(1), 119. Google Scholar
[39]
Sinha R, Chandralekha, Ray BR, Evaluation Google Scholar
[40]
of air-QTM intubating laryngeal airway as a Google Scholar
[41]
conduit for tracheal intubation in infants - a Google Scholar
[42]
pilot study: Air-QTM intubating laryngeal Google Scholar
[43]
airway in infants. Pediatric Anesthesia, 2012; Google Scholar
[44]
(2), 156–160. Google Scholar
[45]
Taxak S, Bihani P, Jaju R et al., Comparative Google Scholar
[46]
evaluation of air-Q and classic laryngeal Google Scholar
[47]
mask airway for surgeries under anesthesia: A Google Scholar
[48]
randomized open-label trial. Indian Anaesth Google Scholar
[49]
Forum, 2019; 20(1), 21. Google Scholar