Join now to get access to this content and more.
Become a SOAP member and have access to our benefits.
- 2020 SOAP Virtual Meeting Series Videos
- For Review: SOAP Consensus Statement on Neuraxial Procedures in Thrombocytopenic Parturients
- Sample Centers of Excellence Applications
- ASA Corner
- SOAP Policy and Procedure Manual (P&P Manual)
- SOAP Expert Opinions
- SOAP's Learning Modules
- 2019 Annual Meeting Lecture Videos
- December 2018 - SOAP Unofficial Guide to ASA Committees Webinar
- Submit a Position
- View Job Postings
- Previous Meeting Archives
- Previous Meeting Abstract Search
- CMS Guidelines
- Member Benefits
- Newsletter Clinical Articles
- ACOG Documents
- Search our Patient Safety Archive
- Ask SOAP a Question
- Global Health Opportunities
- And more…
Comparison of the Laryngeal Tube Suction II (LTS II) with the ProSealTM Laryngeal Mask Airway (PLMATM) for Anesthesia in Gynecologic Laparoscopic Surgery Patients
Abstract Number: 164
Abstract Type: Original Research
Background: The Laryngeal Tube Suction II (LTS II; VBM, Medizintechnik GmbH, Sulz, Germany) is the revised version of the Laryngeal Tube Suction Airway. This study compared its efficacy and safety with the ProSealTM Laryngeal Mask Airway (PLMATM; Laryngeal Mask Company, Henley-on-Thames, United Kingdom) in anesthetized (without nitrous oxide) and paralysed gynecologic laparoscopic surgery patients.
Methods: Seventy female patients were randomly assigned to either the LTS II or PLMATM group. The rate of successful insertion, insertion time, hemodynamics during insertion, best oropharyngeal leak pressure, after airway adjustment if necessary, at 60 cmH2O intracuff pressure, intracuff pressure in the first two hours of surgery, presence of airway leak, and complications during and after surgery were determined.
Results: Insertion was successful at the first attempt in only twenty-eight patients in the LTS II group, significantly less than all the thirty-five patients in the PLMATM group (p = 0.020). Five patients in the LTS II group required two attempts and two patients in the LTS II group required three attempts.) The insertion time, mean (95 % confidence interval), was 31.86 (28.34-35.38) seconds in the LTS II group, significantly longer than 20.74 (17.98-23.51) seconds in the PLMATM group (p < 0.001). The maximum heart rate during insertion, mean (95 % confidence interval), was 80.74 (74.24-87.24) beats/min in the LTS II group, significantly higher than 76.29 (71.82-80.75) beats/min in the PLMATM group. The best oropharyngeal leak pressure, mean (95 % confidence interval), after airway adjustment if necessary, at 60 cmH2O intracuff pressure was similar, 37.14 (34.61-39.68) cmH2O in the LTS II group and 35.46 (33.01-37.90) cmH2O in the PLMATM group (p = 0.472). The maximum airway pressure during pneumoperitoneum was 30.29 (26.96-33.62) cmH2O in the LTS II group, significantly higher than 26.11 (24.43-27.80) cmH2O in the PLMATM group (p = 0.046). The intracuff pressure was significantly higher in the LTS II group after the first hour of surgery. It was also significantly higher at the end of surgery in the LTS II group, 60.94 (58.58-63.30) cmH2O versus 50.66 (46.58-54.74) cmH2O (p < 0.001). The oropharyngeal leak pressure at the end of surgery was also similar, 35.42 (32.72-38.13) cmH2O in the LTS II group and 33.49 (30.74-36.24) cmH2O in the PLMATM group (p = 0.472). Complications related to the airway were seen significantly more often in the LTS II group than in the PLMATM group (13 patients versus 0 patients, p < 0.001). End-tidal CO2 > 50 mmHg was seen significantly more often in the LTS II group than in the PLMATM group (13 patients versus 3 patients, p = 0.004); all patients except one patient in the LTS II group had hypercarbia just after insertion, this LTS II patient had it during maintenance of anesthesia.
Conclusion: The LTS II is inferior to the PLMATM.