Volume 7, Issue 2 (4-2019)                   J. Pediatr. Rev 2019, 7(2): 89-98 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Hendinezhad M A, Babaei A, Gholipour Baradari A, Zamani A. Comparing Supraglottic Airway Devices for Airway Management During Surgery in Children: A Review of Literature. J. Pediatr. Rev 2019; 7 (2) :89-98
URL: http://jpr.mazums.ac.ir/article-1-176-en.html
1- Department of Anesthesiology, Nimeshaban Hospital, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran.
2- Department of Anesthesiology, Emam Khomeini Hospital, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran. , Babaeianahita112@gmail.com
3- Department of Anesthesiology, Emam Khomeini Hospital, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran.
Abstract:   (5059 Views)
Context: Supraglottic Airway Devices (SADs) are applied in airway management of pediatric emergency conditions.
Objective: This review study aimed to examine the literature regarding pediatric supraglottic airway devices, to introduce the optimal devices in terms of Oropharyngeal Leak Pressure (OLP), risk of insertion failure on the first attempt and risk for blood staining of the device.
Data Sources: An electronic search was conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PubMed databases. We also searched the Cochrane database (CENTRAL) and Web of Science up to July 1, 2017.
Study Selection: Of 112 potential studies, the full texts of 53 articles were available, in which 15 were duplicated and omitted, accordingly. Papers which did not directly discuss SADs were also excluded. In total, 30 papers were identified related to the children supraglottic devices.
Data Extraction: The current review was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.
Results: The LMA ProSeal may be the best supraglottic airway device for children due to its high oropharyngeal leakage pressure and low risk of insertion failure. It seems that i-gel is a very functional tool as well.
Conclusions: Further research is recommended to investigate the most appropriate supraglottic airway in diverse clinical situations and various conditions among children.
Full-Text [PDF 572 kb]   (2612 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (2706 Views)  
Type of Study: Systematic Review | Subject: Anesthesiology
Received: 2018/03/18 | Accepted: 2018/05/15 | Published: 2019/04/1

1. Jagannathan N, Kozlowski RJ, Sohn LE, Langen KE, Roth AG, Mukherji II, et al. A clinical evaluation of the intubating laryngeal airway as a conduit for tracheal intubation in children. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2011; 112(1):176-82. [DOI:10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181fe0408] [PMID] [DOI:10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181fe0408]
2. Henderson J, Popat M, Latto I, Pearce A. Difficult airway society guidelines for management of the unanticipated difficult intubation. Anaesthesia. 2004; 59(7):675-94. [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2004.03831.x] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2004.03831.x]
3. Samir EM, Sakr SA. The air-Q as a conduit for fiberoptic aided tracheal intubation in adult patients undergoing cervical spine fixation: A prospective randomized study. Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia. 2012; 28(2):133-7. [DOI:10.1016/j.egja.2011.12.002] [DOI:10.1016/j.egja.2011.12.002]
4. Raw D, Beattie J, Hunter J. Anaesthesia for spinal surgery in adults. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2003; 91(6):886-904. [DOI:10.1093/bja/aeg253] [PMID] [DOI:10.1093/bja/aeg253]
5. Brooks P, Ree R, Rosen D, Ansermino M. Canadian pediatric anesthesiologists prefer inhalational anesthesia to manage difficult airways: A survey. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia. 2005; 52(3):285-90. [DOI:10.1007/BF03016065] [PMID] [DOI:10.1007/BF03016065]
6. Ahn EJ, Choi GJ, Kang H, Baek CW, Jung YH, Woo YC, et al. Comparative efficacy of the air-Q intubating laryngeal airway during general anesthesia in pediatric patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BioMed Research International. 2016; 2016:6406391. [DOI:10.1155/2016/6406391] [PMID] [PMCID]
7. Darlong V, Biyani G, Baidya DK, Pandey R, Punj J, Upadhyay AD. Comparison of air‐Q and Ambu Aura‐i for controlled ventilation in infants: A randomized controlled trial. Pediatric Anesthesia. 2015; 25(8):795-800. [DOI:10.1111/pan.12663] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/pan.12663]
8. Jagannathan N, Sohn L, Sawardekar A, Chang E, Langen K, Anderson K. A randomised trial comparing the laryngeal mask airway Supreme™ with the laryngeal mask airway Unique™ in children. Anaesthesia. 2012; 67(2):139-44. [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06960.x] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06960.x]
9. Kleine Brueggeney M, Nicolet A, Nabecker S, Seiler S, Stucki F, Greif R, et al. Blind intubation of anaesthetised children with supraglottic airway devices AmbuAura-i and Air-Q cannot be recommended: A randomised controlled trial. European Journal of Anaesthesiology. 2015; 32(9):631-9. [DOI:10.1097/EJA.0000000000000261] [PMID] [DOI:10.1097/EJA.0000000000000261]
10. Pejovic NJ, Trevisanuto D, Nankunda J, Tylleskär T. Pilot manikin study showed that a supraglottic airway device improved simulated neonatal ventilation in a low‐resource setting. Acta Paediatrica. 2016; 105(12):1440-3. [DOI:10.1111/apa.13565] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.1111/apa.13565]
11. Beylacq L, Bordes M, Semjen F, Cros AM. The I‐gel®, a single‐use supraglottic airway device with a non‐inflatable cuff and an esophageal vent: An observational study in children. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. 2009; 53(3):376-9. [DOI:10.1111/j.1399-6576.2008.01869.x] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/j.1399-6576.2008.01869.x]
12. Bortone L, Ingelmo PM, Ninno GD, Tosi M, Caffini L, Trenchi J, et al. Randomized controlled trial comparing the laryngeal tube and the laryngeal mask in pediatric patients. Pediatric Anesthesia. 2006; 16(3):251-7. [DOI:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2005.01756.x] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2005.01756.x]
13. Jagannathan N, Wong DT. Successful tracheal intubation through an intubating laryngeal airway in pediatric patients with airway hemorrhage. Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2011; 41(4):369-73. [DOI:10.1016/j.jemermed.2010.05.066] [PMID] [DOI:10.1016/j.jemermed.2010.05.066]
14. Szmuk P, Ezri T, Akca O, Alfery D. Use of a new supraglottic airway device-the CobraPLA-in a 'difficult to intubate/difficult to ventilate'scenario. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. 2005; 49(3):421-3. [DOI:10.1111/j.1399-6576.2005.00618.x] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/j.1399-6576.2005.00618.x]
15. Baker PA, Brunette KE, Byrnes CA, Thompson J. A prospective randomized trial comparing supraglottic airways for flexible bronchoscopy in children. Pediatric Anesthesia. 2010; 20(9):831-8. [DOI:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2010.03362.x] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2010.03362.x]
16. Gaitini L, Carmi N, Yanovski B, Tome R, Resnikov I, Gankin I, et al. Comparison of the CobraPLATM (Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway) and the laryngeal mask airway UniqueTM in children under pressure controlled ventilation. Pediatric Anesthesia. 2008; 18(4):313-9. [DOI:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2008.02449.x] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2008.02449.x]
17. Goyal R, Shukla RN, Kumar G. Comparison of size 2 i‐gel supraglottic airway with LMA‐ProSeal™ and LMA‐Classic™ in spontaneously breathing children undergoing elective surgery. Pediatric Anesthesia. 2012; 22(4):355-9. [DOI:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2011.03757.x] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2011.03757.x]
18. Hughes C, Place K, Berg S, Mason D. A clinical evaluation of the i‐gelTM supraglottic airway device in children. Pediatric Anesthesia. 2012; 22(8):765-71. [DOI:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2012.03893.x] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2012.03893.x]
19. Yeoh TY, Chan KB, Yeo LS, Liu EH, Pan TL. An evaluation of the I-gel supraglottic airway in 70 pediatric patients. Journal of Anesthesia. 2015; 29(2):295-8. [DOI:10.1007/s00540-014-1915-6] [PMID] [DOI:10.1007/s00540-014-1915-6]
20. Jagannathan N, Sommers K, Sohn LE, Sawardekar A, Shah RD, Mukherji II, et al. A randomized equivalence trial comparing the i‐gel and laryngeal mask airway Supreme in children. Pediatric Anesthesia. 2013; 23(2):127-33. [DOI:10.1111/pan.12078] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/pan.12078]
21. Nirupa R, Gombar S, Ahuja V, Sharma P. A randomised trial to compare i-gel and ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway for airway management in paediatric patients. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia. 2016; 60(10):726-31. [DOI:10.4103/0019-5049.191670] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.4103/0019-5049.191670]
22. Jagannathan N, Sohn LE, Chang E, Sawardekar A. A cohort evaluation of the Laryngeal Mask Airway‐Supreme™ in children. Pediatric Anesthesia. 2012; 22(8):759-64. [DOI:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2012.03832.x] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2012.03832.x]
23. Jagannathan N, Roth AG, Sohn LE, Pak TY, Amin S, Suresh S. The new air‐QTM intubating laryngeal airway for tracheal intubation in children with anticipated difficult airway: A case series. Pediatric Anesthesia. 2009; 19(6):618-22. [DOI:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2009.02990.x] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2009.02990.x]
24. Jagannathan N, Sohn LE, Mankoo R, Langen KE, Roth AG, Hall SC. Prospective evaluation of the self‐pressurized air‐Q intubating laryngeal airway in children. Pediatric Anesthesia. 2011; 21(6):673-80. [DOI:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2011.03576.x] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2011.03576.x]
25. Jagannathan N, Sohn LE, Sawardekar A, Gordon J, Shah RD, Mukherji II, et al. A randomized trial comparing the Ambu® Aura‐i™ with the air‐Q™ intubating laryngeal airway as conduits for tracheal intubation in children. Pediatric Anesthesia. 2012; 22(12):1197-204. [DOI:10.1111/pan.12024] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/pan.12024]
26. Jain D, Ghai B, Bala I, Gandhi K, Banerjee G. Evaluation of I‐gel™ airway in different head and neck positions in anesthetized paralyzed children. Pediatric Anesthesia. 2015; 325(12):1248-53. [DOI:10.1111/pan.12748] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/pan.12748]
27. Sunder RA, Sinha R, Agarwal A, Perumal BCS, Paneerselvam SR. Comparison of Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway (CobraPLA™) with flexible laryngeal mask airway in terms of device stability and ventilation characteristics in pediatric ophthalmic surgery. Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology. 2012; 28(3):322-5. [DOI:10.4103/0970-9185.98324] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.4103/0970-9185.98324]
28. Kelly F, Sale S, Bayley G, Cook T, Stoddart P, White M. A cohort evaluation of the pediatric ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in 100 children. Pediatric Anesthesia. 2008; 18(10):947-51. [DOI:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2008.02705.x] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2008.02705.x]
29. Kim MS, Lee JH, Han SW, Im YJ, Kang HJ, Lee JR. A randomized comparison of the i‐gel™ with the self‐pressurized air‐Q™ intubating laryngeal airway in children. Pediatric Anesthesia. 2015; 25(4):405-12. [DOI:10.1111/pan.12609] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/pan.12609]
30. Kus A, Gok CN, Hosten T, Gurkan Y, Solak M, Toker K. The LMA-Supreme versus the I-gel in simulated difficult airway in children: A randomised study. European Journal of Anaesthesiology. 2014; 31(5):280-4. [DOI:10.1097/EJA.0000000000000062] [PMID] [DOI:10.1097/EJA.0000000000000062]
31. Al Mazrou KA, Abdullah KM, ElGammal MS, Ansari RA, Turkistani A, Abdelmeguid ME. Laryngeal mask airway vs. uncuffed endotracheal tube for nasal and paranasal sinus surgery: Paediatric airway protection. European Journal of Anaesthesiology. 2010; 27(1):16-9. [DOI:10.1097/EJA.0b013e32832c5f09] [PMID] [DOI:10.1097/EJA.0b013e32832c5f09]
32. Mitra S, Das B, Jamil SN. Comparison of size 2.5 i-gel™ with ProSeal LMA™ in anaesthetised, paralyzed children undergoing elective surgery. North American Journal of Medical Sciences. 2012; 4(10):453-7. [DOI:10.4103/1947-2714.101983] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.4103/1947-2714.101983]
33. Pandey RK, Subramanium RK, Darlong V, Lekha C, Garg R, Punj J, et al. Evaluation of glottic view through Air‐Q intubating laryngeal airway in the supine and lateral position and assessing it as a conduit for blind endotracheal intubation in children in the supine position. Pediatric Anesthesia. 2015; 25(12):1241-7. [DOI:10.1111/pan.12746] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/pan.12746]
34. Schloss B, Rice J, Tobias JD. The laryngeal mask in infants and children: What is the cuff pressure? International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology. 2012; 76(2):284-6. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijporl.2011.11.022] [PMID] [DOI:10.1016/j.ijporl.2011.11.022]
35. Ouellette RG. The effect of nitrous oxide on laryngeal mask cuff pressure. American Association of Nurse Anesthetists. 2000; 68(5):411-4. [PMID]
36. Ong M, Chambers N, Hullet B, Erb T, Ungern Sternberg V. Laryngeal mask airway and tracheal tube cuff pressures in children: Are clinical endpoints valuable for guiding inflation?. Anaesthesia. 2008; 63(7):738-44. [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05486.x] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05486.x]
37. Licina A, Chambers NA, Hullett B, Erb TO, Ungern Sternberg V, Britta S. Lower cuff pressures improve the seal of pediatric laryngeal mask airways. Pediatric Anesthesia. 2008; 18(10):952-6. [DOI:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2008.02706.x] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2008.02706.x]
38. Augustine SD, Arnold RC, McGrail TW. Laryngeal airway device. Washington: United States Patent; 2000.
39. Xue F, Wang Q, Yuan J, Xiong J, Liao X. Is fibreoptic scoring a valuable means to assess proper positioning of the classic laryngeal mask airway in paediatric patients? Anaesthesia and Intensive Care. 2010; 38(3):591-3. [PMID] [PMID]
40. Cook T, Cranshaw J. Randomized crossover comparison of ProSeal® Laryngeal Mask Airway with Laryngeal Tube Sonda® during anaesthesia with controlled ventilation. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2005; 95(2):261-6. [DOI:10.1093/bja/aei167] [PMID] [DOI:10.1093/bja/aei167]
41. Lopez Gil M, Brimacombe J, Alvarez M. Safety and efficacy of the laryngeal mask airway a prospective survey of 1400 children. Anaesthesia. 1996; 51(10):969-72. [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2044.1996.tb14968.x] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2044.1996.tb14968.x]
42. Mason D, Bingham R. The laryngeal mask airway in children. Anaesthesia. 1990; 45(9):760-3. [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2044.1990.tb14449.x] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2044.1990.tb14449.x]
43. Sanders JC, Olomu PN, Furman JR. Detection, frequency and prediction of problems in the use of the proseal laryngeal mask airway in children. Pediatric Anesthesia. 2008; 18(12):1183-9. [DOI:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2008.02784.x] [DOI:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2008.02784.x]
44. Jagannathan N, Sohn L, Sommers K, Belvis D, Shah RD, Sawardekar A, et al. A randomized comparison of the laryngeal mask airway supreme™ and laryngeal mask airway unique™ in infants and children: Does cuff pressure influence leak pressure?. Pediatric Anesthesia. 2013; 23(10):927-33. [DOI:10.1111/pan.12145] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/pan.12145]
45. Shimbori H, Ono K, Miwa T, Morimura N, Noguchi M, Hiroki K. Comparison of the LMA-ProSeal™ and LMA-Classic™ in children. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2004; 93(4):528-31. [DOI:10.1093/bja/aeh238] [PMID] [DOI:10.1093/bja/aeh238]
46. Akça O, Wadhwa A, Sengupta P, Durrani J, Hanni K, Wenke M, et al. The new Perilaryngeal Airway (CobraPLA™) is as efficient as the Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA™), but provides better airway sealing pressures. Anesthesia and Analgesia. 2004; 99(1):272-8. [DOI:10.1213/01.ANE.0000117003.60213.E9] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.1213/01.ANE.0000117003.60213.E9]
47. Singh I, Gupta M, Tandon M. Comparison of clinical performance of I-Gel™ with LMA—Proseal™ in elective surgeries. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia. 2009; 53(3):302-5. [PMID] [PMCID] [PMID] [PMCID]
48. Levitan R, Kinkle W. Initial anatomic investigations of the I‐gel airway: A novel supraglottic airway without inflatable cuff. Anaesthesia. 2005; 60(10):1022-6. [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2005.04258.x] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2005.04258.x]
49. Jagannathan N, Sohn L, Sawardekar A, Gordon J, Langen K, Anderson K. A randomised comparison of the LMA Supreme™ and LMA ProSeal™ in children. Anaesthesia. 2012; 67(6):632-9. [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2012.07088.x] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2012.07088.x]
50. Francksen H, Duetschke P, Renner J, Berthold B. A comparison of the i-gel with the LMA Supreme in nonparalysed anaesthetized children: 19AP2-8. European Journal of Anaesthesiology. 2012; 29:231. [DOI:10.1097/00003643-201206001-00769] [DOI:10.1097/00003643-201206001-00769]
51. Gaitini L, Yanovski B, Toame R, Carmi N, Somri M. Laryngeal tube suction II versus the ProSeal laryngeal mask in anesthetized children with spontaneous ventilation: 19AP6-3. European Journal of Anaesthesiology. 2007; 24:203. [DOI:10.1097/00003643-200706001-00757] [DOI:10.1097/00003643-200706001-00757]
52. Sudhir G, Redfern D, Hall J, Wilkes A, Cann C. A comparison of the disposable Ambu® AuraOnce™ laryngeal mask with the reusable LMA Classic™ laryngeal mask airway. Anaesthesia. 2007; 62(7):719-22. [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2007.05067.x] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2007.05067.x]
53. Baidya D, Darlong V, Pandey R, Maitra S, Khanna P. Comparative efficacy and safety of the Ambu® AuraOnce™ laryngeal mask airway during general anaesthesia in adults: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Anaesthesia. 2014; 69(9):1023-32. [DOI:10.1111/anae.12682] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/anae.12682]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2023 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Journal of Pediatrics Review

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb