Share |

Comparison between the Use of LMA™ and SLIPA™ in Patients Undergoing Minor Surgeries.

Original articles


Supraglottic  airway  devices  have  been  used  as  safe  alternatives  to  endotracheal  intubation  in appropriate  types  of surgery. This was a prospective, randomised, single blind study comparing the use of LMA™ and SLIPA™ in terms of ease of insertion, haemodynamic changes and occurrence of adverse effects (e.g. blood stains on the device upon removal and sore throat). A total of 62  ASA I or II patients, aged between 18 to 70  years  were recruited  for  this study. Patients were randomised into two groups; LMA™ and SLIPA™ group. Following induction of anaesthesia, an appropriate sized LMA™ or SLIPA™ was inserted after ensuring adequate depth of anaesthesia. Anaesthesia was maintained  with  oxygen,  nitrous  oxide  and  sevoflurane.  The  ease  of  insertion  was  graded  and  haemodynamic changes were recorded at 2 minute intervals up to 10 minutes after insertion of the airway devices. The presence of blood stains upon airway device removal at the end of surgery and incidence of sore throat was also recorded. No difficult  insertion  was  experienced  in  either  of  these  devices.  Insertion  was  either  easy  [LMA™  87.1%  versus SLIPA™ 80.6% (p = 0.49)] or moderate [LMA™ 12.9% versus SLIPA™ 19.4% (p = 0.16)]. Throughout the study period, the haemodynamic changes that occurred in both groups were not statistically different. Traces of blood were noted on the surface of the device in 9.7% of patients in the SLIPA™ group versus 6.5% of patients in the LMA™ group. The incidence of sore throat was recorded in 12.9% versus 19.4% of patients in the SLIPA™ and the LMA™ groups respectively. These findings were not statistically significant. In conclusion, this study showed no significant differences  between  the  use  of  LMA™  and  SLIPA™  in  terms  of  ease  of  insertion,  haemodynamic  changes  and adverse effects in patients undergoing minor surgical procedures.