A randomised comparison of the self-pressurised air-QTM intubating laryngeal airway with the LMA UniqueTM in children*

Authors

  • N. Jagannathan,

    1.  Attending Pediatric Anesthesiologist and Assistant Professor, Department of Pediatric Anesthesia, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, Department of Pediatric Anesthesia and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • L. E. Sohn,

    1.  Attending Pediatric Anesthesiologist and Assistant Professor, Department of Pediatric Anesthesia, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, Department of Pediatric Anesthesia and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • A. Sawardekar,

    1.  Attending Pediatric Anesthesiologist and Assistant Professor, Department of Pediatric Anesthesia, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, Department of Pediatric Anesthesia and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • R. Shah,

    1.  Attending Pediatric Anesthesiologist and Assistant Professor, Department of Pediatric Anesthesia, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, Department of Pediatric Anesthesia and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • K. Ryan,

    1.  Fellow in Pediatric Anesthesia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • R. Jagannathan,

    1.  Research Student
    Search for more papers by this author
  • K. Anderson

    1.  Anesthesia Technician, Department of Pediatric Anesthesia, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA
    Search for more papers by this author

N. Jagannathan
Email: simjag2000@yahoo.com

Summary

We conducted a randomised trial comparing the self-pressurised air-QTM intubating laryngeal airway (air-Q SP) with the LMA-Unique in 60 children undergoing surgery. Outcomes measured were airway leak pressure, ease and time for insertion, fibreoptic examination, incidence of gastric insufflation and complications. Median (IQR [range]) time to successful device placement was faster with the air-Q SP (12 (10–15 [5–18])) s than with the LMA-Unique (14 (12–17 [6–22]) s; p = 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the air-Q SP and LMA-Unique in initial airway leak pressures (16 (14–18 [10–29]) compared with 18 (15–20 [10–30]) cmH2O, p = 0.12), an airway leak pressures at 10 min (19 (16–22 [12–30]) compared with 20 (16–22 [10–30]) cmH2O, p = 0.81); fibreoptic position, incidence of gastric insufflation, or complications. Both devices provided effective ventilation without the need for airway manipulation. The air-Q SP is an alternative to the LMA-Unique should the clinician prefer a device not requiring cuff monitoring during anaesthesia.

Ancillary