↓ Skip to main content

A randomized prospective controlled trial comparing the laryngeal tube suction disposable and the supreme laryngeal mask airway: the influence of head and neck position on oropharyngeal seal pressure

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A randomized prospective controlled trial comparing the laryngeal tube suction disposable and the supreme laryngeal mask airway: the influence of head and neck position on oropharyngeal seal pressure
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12871-016-0237-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mostafa Somri, Sonia Vaida, Gustavo Garcia Fornari, Gabriela Renee Mendoza, Pedro Charco-Mora, Naser Hawash, Ibrahim Matter, Forat Swaid, Luis Gaitini

Abstract

The Laryngeal Tube Suction Disposable (LTS-D) and the Supreme Laryngeal Mask Airway (SLMA) are second generation supraglottic airway devices (SADs) with an added channel to allow gastric drainage. We studied the efficacy of these devices when using pressure controlled mechanical ventilation during general anesthesia for short and medium duration surgical procedures and compared the oropharyngeal seal pressure in different head and-neck positions. Eighty patients in each group had either LTS-D or SLMA for airway management. The patients were recruited in two different institutions. Primary outcome variables were the oropharyngeal seal pressures in neutral, flexion, extension, right and left head-neck position. Secondary outcome variables were time to achieve an effective airway, ease of insertion, number of attempts, maneuvers necessary during insertion, ventilatory parameters, success of gastric tube insertion and incidence of complications. The oropharyngeal seal pressure achieved with the LTS-D was higher than the SLMA in, (extension (p=0.0150) and right position (p=0.0268 at 60 cm H2O intracuff pressures and nearly significant in neutral position (p = 0.0571). The oropharyngeal seal pressure was significantly higher with the LTS-D during neck extension as compared to SLMA (p= 0.015). Similar oropharyngeal seal pressures were detected in all other positions with each device. The secondary outcomes were comparable between both groups. Patients ventilated with LTS-D had higher incidence of sore throat (p = 0.527). No major complications occurred. Better oropharyngeal seal pressure was achieved with the LTS-D in head-neck right and extension positions , although it did not appear to have significance in alteration of management using pressure control mechanical ventilation in neutral position. The fiberoptic view was better with the SLMA. The post-operative sore throat incidence was higher in the LTS-D. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02856672 , Unique Protocol ID:BnaiZionMC-16-LG-001, Registered: August 2016.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 17%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Researcher 3 7%
Professor 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 14 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 14 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 October 2016.
All research outputs
#18,475,157
of 22,893,031 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#994
of 1,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,066
of 319,910 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#24
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,893,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,502 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,910 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.