↓ Skip to main content

A preliminary assessment of the LMA protector™ in non-paralysed patients

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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 preliminary assessment of the LMA protector™ in non-paralysed patients
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12871-017-0323-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ban Leong Sng, Farida Binte Ithnin, Deepak Mathur, Eileen Lew, Nian-Lin Reena Han, Alex Tiong-Heng Sia

Abstract

The LMA Protector™ is the latest CE marked single use supraglottic airway device. This airway device provides access and functional separation of the respiratory and digestive tracts. There are two ports (male, female ports) to provide suction in the laryngeal region and insertion of the gastric tube. The aim of our study is to assess the ease of use, airway quality, device positioning, airway leak and complications associated with initial clinical experience in LMA Protector™ usage. This is an initial investigation of LMA Protector™ airway device. We conducted a preliminary assessment in the anaesthetised women who underwent minor gynaecological procedures with spontaneous ventilation in order to evaluate the performance of the airway device. Insertion was successful on first and second attempts in 23 (88.5%) and 3 (11.5%) respectively. Median [IQR (range)] insertion time was 19 [17-21(14-58)] seconds. Airway leak pressure was 25.5 [23-29(21-30] cmH2O. On fibreoptic examination via the device, vocal cords were visible in all 26 patients. There were no alternative airway use or airway manipulations required during maintenance of anaesthesia. Six patients had sore throat 24 h after procedures and there was no dysphagia or hoarseness. This pilot study of the LMA protector shows that the device is easily inserted with fast insertion time, providing a reliable and adequate airway seal. Clinicaltrials.gov Registration NCT02531256 . Retrospectively registered on August 21, 2015.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 11 23%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Master 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Lecturer 2 4%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 16 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 38%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 18 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 February 2017.
All research outputs
#14,334,914
of 22,955,959 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#528
of 1,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,207
of 310,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#15
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,955,959 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,504 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
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 310,302 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.