Comparison of the clinical effectiveness between the streamlined liner of pharyngeal airway (SLIPA) and the laryngeal mask airway by novice personnel

Seok Kyeong Oh, Byung Gun Lim, Heezoo Kim, Sang Ho Lim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the streamlined liner of the pharynx airway (SLIPA) with the classic laryngeal mask airway when used by novice personnel. Methods: There were 114 patients enrolled into this study who underwent general anesthesia were randomly allocated into one of 2 groups; LMA group (n = 57) or SLIPA group (n = 57). After insertion, insertion success rate, insertion time, and hemodynamic responses to insertion were accessed. After surgery, postoperative airway morbidity (sore throat, dysphonia, dysphagia) were evaluated. Results: The SLIPA was successfully inserted in 96% of patients (55/57) and the LMA in 93% (53/57) (P = 0.408). First attempt success rates were 88% (44/57) and 77% (50/57) in the SLIPA and the LMA (P = 0.142). The successful insertion time in SLIPA group (33.4 ± 11.0 sec) was significantly shorter than that of LMA group (38.8 ± 16.6 sec) (P = 0.048) and the insertion time at the first attempt was also shorter in SLIPA group (31.0 ± 6.3 sec) than LMA group (34.7 ± 8.6 sec) (P = 0.013). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in hemodynamic responses and postoperative airway morbidity. Conclusions: The SLIPA was similar to the LMA in insertion success rate, hemodynamic response, and postoperative airway morbidity by novice personnel. The insertion time at the first attempt and successful insertion time of the SLIPA were significantly shorter than those of the LMA. Therefore, the SLIPA could be a useful alternative to the LMA as primary SGA for novice personnel. (Korean J Anesthesiol 2012; 63: 136-141).

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)136-141
Number of pages6
JournalKorean Journal of Anesthesiology
Volume63
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012 Jan 1

Fingerprint

Laryngeal Masks
Hemodynamics
Morbidity
Dysphonia
Pharyngitis
Deglutition Disorders
Pharynx
General Anesthesia

Keywords

  • Airway
  • Laryngeal mask
  • SLIPA
  • Supraglottic

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

@article{b71c0a6a817c4ea7bf4d754211dd32b0,
title = "Comparison of the clinical effectiveness between the streamlined liner of pharyngeal airway (SLIPA) and the laryngeal mask airway by novice personnel",
abstract = "Background: The aim of this study was to compare the streamlined liner of the pharynx airway (SLIPA) with the classic laryngeal mask airway when used by novice personnel. Methods: There were 114 patients enrolled into this study who underwent general anesthesia were randomly allocated into one of 2 groups; LMA group (n = 57) or SLIPA group (n = 57). After insertion, insertion success rate, insertion time, and hemodynamic responses to insertion were accessed. After surgery, postoperative airway morbidity (sore throat, dysphonia, dysphagia) were evaluated. Results: The SLIPA was successfully inserted in 96{\%} of patients (55/57) and the LMA in 93{\%} (53/57) (P = 0.408). First attempt success rates were 88{\%} (44/57) and 77{\%} (50/57) in the SLIPA and the LMA (P = 0.142). The successful insertion time in SLIPA group (33.4 ± 11.0 sec) was significantly shorter than that of LMA group (38.8 ± 16.6 sec) (P = 0.048) and the insertion time at the first attempt was also shorter in SLIPA group (31.0 ± 6.3 sec) than LMA group (34.7 ± 8.6 sec) (P = 0.013). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in hemodynamic responses and postoperative airway morbidity. Conclusions: The SLIPA was similar to the LMA in insertion success rate, hemodynamic response, and postoperative airway morbidity by novice personnel. The insertion time at the first attempt and successful insertion time of the SLIPA were significantly shorter than those of the LMA. Therefore, the SLIPA could be a useful alternative to the LMA as primary SGA for novice personnel. (Korean J Anesthesiol 2012; 63: 136-141).",
keywords = "Airway, Laryngeal mask, SLIPA, Supraglottic",
author = "Oh, {Seok Kyeong} and Lim, {Byung Gun} and Heezoo Kim and Lim, {Sang Ho}",
year = "2012",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.4097/kjae.2012.63.2.136",
language = "English",
volume = "63",
pages = "136--141",
journal = "Korean Journal of Anesthesiology",
issn = "2005-6419",
publisher = "Korean Society of Anesthesiologists",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of the clinical effectiveness between the streamlined liner of pharyngeal airway (SLIPA) and the laryngeal mask airway by novice personnel

AU - Oh, Seok Kyeong

AU - Lim, Byung Gun

AU - Kim, Heezoo

AU - Lim, Sang Ho

PY - 2012/1/1

Y1 - 2012/1/1

N2 - Background: The aim of this study was to compare the streamlined liner of the pharynx airway (SLIPA) with the classic laryngeal mask airway when used by novice personnel. Methods: There were 114 patients enrolled into this study who underwent general anesthesia were randomly allocated into one of 2 groups; LMA group (n = 57) or SLIPA group (n = 57). After insertion, insertion success rate, insertion time, and hemodynamic responses to insertion were accessed. After surgery, postoperative airway morbidity (sore throat, dysphonia, dysphagia) were evaluated. Results: The SLIPA was successfully inserted in 96% of patients (55/57) and the LMA in 93% (53/57) (P = 0.408). First attempt success rates were 88% (44/57) and 77% (50/57) in the SLIPA and the LMA (P = 0.142). The successful insertion time in SLIPA group (33.4 ± 11.0 sec) was significantly shorter than that of LMA group (38.8 ± 16.6 sec) (P = 0.048) and the insertion time at the first attempt was also shorter in SLIPA group (31.0 ± 6.3 sec) than LMA group (34.7 ± 8.6 sec) (P = 0.013). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in hemodynamic responses and postoperative airway morbidity. Conclusions: The SLIPA was similar to the LMA in insertion success rate, hemodynamic response, and postoperative airway morbidity by novice personnel. The insertion time at the first attempt and successful insertion time of the SLIPA were significantly shorter than those of the LMA. Therefore, the SLIPA could be a useful alternative to the LMA as primary SGA for novice personnel. (Korean J Anesthesiol 2012; 63: 136-141).

AB - Background: The aim of this study was to compare the streamlined liner of the pharynx airway (SLIPA) with the classic laryngeal mask airway when used by novice personnel. Methods: There were 114 patients enrolled into this study who underwent general anesthesia were randomly allocated into one of 2 groups; LMA group (n = 57) or SLIPA group (n = 57). After insertion, insertion success rate, insertion time, and hemodynamic responses to insertion were accessed. After surgery, postoperative airway morbidity (sore throat, dysphonia, dysphagia) were evaluated. Results: The SLIPA was successfully inserted in 96% of patients (55/57) and the LMA in 93% (53/57) (P = 0.408). First attempt success rates were 88% (44/57) and 77% (50/57) in the SLIPA and the LMA (P = 0.142). The successful insertion time in SLIPA group (33.4 ± 11.0 sec) was significantly shorter than that of LMA group (38.8 ± 16.6 sec) (P = 0.048) and the insertion time at the first attempt was also shorter in SLIPA group (31.0 ± 6.3 sec) than LMA group (34.7 ± 8.6 sec) (P = 0.013). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in hemodynamic responses and postoperative airway morbidity. Conclusions: The SLIPA was similar to the LMA in insertion success rate, hemodynamic response, and postoperative airway morbidity by novice personnel. The insertion time at the first attempt and successful insertion time of the SLIPA were significantly shorter than those of the LMA. Therefore, the SLIPA could be a useful alternative to the LMA as primary SGA for novice personnel. (Korean J Anesthesiol 2012; 63: 136-141).

KW - Airway

KW - Laryngeal mask

KW - SLIPA

KW - Supraglottic

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84930477627&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84930477627&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4097/kjae.2012.63.2.136

DO - 10.4097/kjae.2012.63.2.136

M3 - Article

VL - 63

SP - 136

EP - 141

JO - Korean Journal of Anesthesiology

JF - Korean Journal of Anesthesiology

SN - 2005-6419

IS - 2

ER -