COMPARISON OF THE EFFICACY OF AIR-Q LARYNGEAL MASK AIRWAY AND CLASSIC LARYNGEAL MASK AIRWAY USED FOR PEDIATRIC GENERAL ANESTHESIA
Main Article Content
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.
Article Details
Keywords
Laryngeal mask airway, air-Q, classic, pediatric anesthesia.
References
al., The effectiveness of airway control and
oropharyngeal injury of I-gel compared with
laryngeal mask classic, Journal of Medical
Research, 2020; 134 (10), 22-27.
[2] Ahn EJ, Choi GJ, Kang H et al., Comparative
Efficacy of the Air-Q Intubating Laryngeal
Airway during General Anesthesia in
Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review
and Meta-Analysis, BioMed Research
International, 2016, 1–11.
[3] Brain AI, The development of the Laryngeal
Mask--a brief history of the invention, early
clinical studies and experimental work from
which the Laryngeal Mask evolved. Eur J
Anaesthesiol Suppl, 1991; 4, 5–17.
[4] Ha SH, Kim MS, Suh J et al., Self-pressurized
air-Q® intubating laryngeal airway versus
the LMA® ClassicTM: a randomized clinical
trial. Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth, 2018, 65(5),
T.X. Thinh et al. / Vietnam Journal of Community Medicine, Special Issue (2022) 108-115115
543–550.
[5] Hendinezhad MA, Babaei A, Gholipour
BA et al., Comparing Supraglottic Airway
Devices for Airway Management During
Surgery in Children: A Review of Literature.
J Pediatr Rev, 2018, (3), 89–98.
[6] Jagannathan N, Sohn LE, Mankoo R et al., A
randomized crossover comparison between
the Laryngeal Mask Airway-UniqueTM and
the air-Q Intubating Laryngeal Airway in
children*: Crossover comparison between the
air-Q ILA and LMA-U in children. Pediatric
Anesthesia, 2012; 22(2), 161–167.
[7] Kleine-Brueggeney M, Gottfried A, Nabecker
S et al., Pediatric supraglottic airway devices in
clinical practice: A prospective observational
study. BMC Anesthesiol, 2017; 17(1), 119.
[8] Sinha R, Chandralekha, Ray BR, Evaluation
of air-QTM intubating laryngeal airway as a
conduit for tracheal intubation in infants - a
pilot study: Air-QTM intubating laryngeal
airway in infants. Pediatric Anesthesia, 2012;
22(2), 156–160.
[9] Taxak S, Bihani P, Jaju R et al., Comparative
evaluation of air-Q and classic laryngeal
mask airway for surgeries under anesthesia: A
randomized open-label trial. Indian Anaesth
Forum, 2019; 20(1), 21.