Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The purpose of this study is to evaluate a new supra-glottic airway device, the "Disposable Laryngeal Tube Suction" (LTS-D; King Systems, Noblesville, IN). We propose to test its ease of insertion, position within the airway, patency of drain tube and anatomic sealing properties during spontaneous ventilation in anesthetized patients. The study device will be compared to the ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway (PLMA, LMA North America Inc.) and the Esophageal Tracheal Combitube (ETC; Tyco Healthcare/Mallinckrodt Nellcor, Pleasanton, Calif).
During the past decade, several pharyngeal airways have been introduced into clinical practice for airway management, such as the Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA), the Cuffed Oropharyngeal Airway (COPA), the Esophageal Tracheal Combitube (ETC), and most recently, the Laryngeal Tube (LT). These airway devices have become very popular because of their ability to maintain an airway without perturbing the trachea, and can be used in patients without muscle relaxation and who are only lightly anesthetized.
The LMA generally provides an adequate airway, but certain problems remain. (1) In 8-33% of LMA placements, more than one attempt is required. (2) It is sometimes difficult to advance the LMA without extending the neck (which is contraindicated in some patients). (3) The device does not protect the airway from aspiration of gastric contents. (4) It does not provide an airtight seal around the larynx (the usual pressures causing leakage of gas being 15-20 cm H20). Consequently, the device functions poorly during positive-pressure ventilation. (5) The esophagus is included within the rim of the LMA in 10-15% of patients, directly exposing the esophagus to positive airway pressures. This often results in insufflation of the stomach and postoperative discomfort.
The ETC is a disposable double-lumen tube that combines the features of a conventional endotracheal tube with those of an esophageal obturator airway. It is appropriate for prehospital, intraoperative, and emergency use and is especially useful for patients in whom direct visualization of the vocal cords is not possible, patients with massive airway bleeding or regurgitation, limited access to the airway, and patients in whom neck movement is contraindicated. Ventilation with the ETC is possible with either tracheal or esophageal intubation, as its distal cuff seals off the esophagus to prevent aspiration of gastric contents. The ETC has a 6.9% incidence of placement failure and a failed ventilation rate of 21.1%.
The Laryngeal Tube Suction (LTS; VBM Medizintechnik; King Systems, Noblesville, IN) is a supra-glottic airway device designed to provide a more effective seal than the LMA, thus eliminating problems 3-5 described above. The insertion of the standard laryngeal tube is generally easy. The reported success rate of insertion of, and ventilation through, the laryngeal tube ranges from 92-100% for the earlier prototype and 97-100% for the newest version. It is a flexible, curved tube that passes through the mouth, advances posterior to the epiglottis, and terminates in the upper esophagus. The multi-use, double-lumen, silicon LTS is designed with ventilation outlets located between an oropharyngeal and an esophageal, low-pressure cuff. The second lumen allows for an orogastric tube to be passed through for gastric drainage and pressure release. Patients at risk of regurgitation now have an alternative to tracheal intubation. This device has been used in a number of patients by anesthesiologists in Europe. There are many published scientific abstracts in the use of the LTS. A disposable version of the LTS is now available, the LTS-D. The LTS-D offers the same benefits as the LTS, but being disposable, it also eliminates the risk of cross-infection.
The ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway (PLMA, LMA North America Inc.) is the pre-existing double-lumen supra-glottic device that allows gastric drainage and pressure release. Its design is based on the LMA with an added lumen. It is reusable. The ProSeal exhibits an unsuccessful ventilation rate of 9%, and a first time insertion failure of 12.7%. Currently, the ProSeal exhibits a 3% incidence of foldover during insertion that prevents it from functioning properly. Due to differences in design, we postulate that the LTS-D will have a lower incidence of foldover than the PLMA.
This clinical study has been designed to compare the ProSeal, ETC and LTS-D as to the ease of placement and ventilation during controlled ventilation, proper positioning, the seal pressure with each placement, the patency of the drain tube by suctioning and measuring stomach contents, and finally, any complications with their use. Fiberoptic observations through each device will provide information in relation to the epiglottis and the distal opening of the device.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| LTS-D | Experimental | All the cases were divided into one of the group LTS-D, PLMA, and ETC |
|
| ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway | Experimental | All patients were divided into either LTS-D, PLMA, or the ETC group. |
|
| Esophageal Tracheal Combitube (ETC) | Experimental | All patients are divided into one of the group, LTS-D, PLMA, or the ETC. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LTS-D | Device | supra-glottic airway device |
|
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Duration of Intubation | The time taken to successfully place the device in seconds. | duration of intubation |
| Number of Participants With a Successful First Attempt Placement | The number of patients in whom the assigned device was successfully placed in the first attempt as per protocol. | Time taken for successful placement |
| Number of Patients Who Required Multiple Attempts. | The number of repeated attempts required for successfully placing the device. Each device was given a chance of 3 attempts if still unsuccessful after 3 attempts another device was placed. | Time taken for intubation |
| Leak Pressures | The maximum leak pressure attained for each device. | Duration of surgery |
| Post Operative Morbidity | We followed the patients 2 and 24 hours after the surgery for sore throat, hoarseness and dysphagia.The numbers represented here are the number of patients who reported sore throat at 2 hrs and after 24 hrs as per the protocol. | 2 hrs and 24 hrs after surgery |
| Number of Failed Cases | We calculated the number of failed cases. As per protocol, that is number of patients in whom successful intubation was not achieved with the assigned device after 3 attempts. | Time taken for successful intubation |
Not provided
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Patients will be excluded from the study if they present as Mallampati III or IV, ASA IV-V or emergency status. Additionally, they will be excluded if they meet one of the contraindication criteria of the LMA ProSeal including:
Additionally, they will be excluded if they meet one of the contraindication criteria for the Combitube including:
They will also be excluded if any tracheal disease is present such as tracheal tumors, stenosis or previous tracheal surgery.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Carin A. Hagberg, M.D. | The University of Texas Medical School at Houston | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Memorial Hermann Hospital | Houston | Texas | 77030 | United States |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
There were no enrolled participants excluded from trial before assignment to groups.
Patients were recruited from the Memorial Hermann Hospital between 05/30/2007 and 04/15/2009. The patients enrolled were undergoing general anesthesia.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | Disposable Laryngeal Tube Suction (LTS-D) | Patients were randomly distributed into this group. The patients assigned to this group were intubated using a new LMA device the LTS-D. |
| FG001 | Esophageal Tracheal Combitube(ETC) | Patients were randomly assigned into this group. The patients assisgned to this group were intubated with the device ETC. |
| FG002 | ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway (PLMA) | Patients were randomly assigned into this group. The patients in this group were intubated with the device PLMA. |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study |
|
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | Disposable Laryngeal Tube Suction (LTS-D) | Patients were randomly distributed into this group. The patients assigned to this group were intubated using a new LMA device the LTS-D. |
| BG001 | Esophageal Tracheal Combitube(ETC) |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Categorical | Count of Participants |
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Duration of Intubation | The time taken to successfully place the device in seconds. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | seconds | duration of intubation |
|
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | Disposable Laryngeal Tube Suction (LTS-D) | Patients were randomly distributed into this group. The patients assigned to this group were intubated using a new LMA device the LTS-D. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dr. Carin A. Hagberg | UTHSC- Houston Medical School | 713.500.6222 | maddukuri.vineela@uth.tmc.edu |
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D017214 | Laryngeal Masks |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D007442 | Intubation, Intratracheal |
| D058109 | Airway Management |
| D013812 | Therapeutics |
| D007440 | Intubation |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway | Device | pre-existing double-lumen supra-glottic device |
|
|
| Esophageal Tracheal Combitube (ETC) | Device | disposable double-lumen tube |
|
|
Patients were randomly assigned into this group. The patients assisgned to this group were intubated with the device ETC.
| BG002 | ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway (PLMA) | Patients were randomly assigned into this group. The patients in this group were intubated with the device PLMA. |
| BG003 | Total | Total of all reporting groups |
| Participants |
|
| Age, Continuous | Mean | Standard Deviation | years |
|
| Sex: Female, Male | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Region of Enrollment | Number | participants |
|
Patients were randomly assigned into this group. The patients in this group were intubated with the device PLMA. |
|
|
| Primary | Number of Participants With a Successful First Attempt Placement | The number of patients in whom the assigned device was successfully placed in the first attempt as per protocol. | As per protocol,of all the patients intubated with the assigned specific device number of patients in whom the device was placed successfully in the first attempt. | Posted | Number | Participants | Time taken for successful placement |
|
|
|
| Primary | Number of Patients Who Required Multiple Attempts. | The number of repeated attempts required for successfully placing the device. Each device was given a chance of 3 attempts if still unsuccessful after 3 attempts another device was placed. | As per protocol,the number of cases in whom the device could not be placed successfully in first attempt and required 2nd and 3rd attempts. | Posted | Number | Participants | Time taken for intubation |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | Leak Pressures | The maximum leak pressure attained for each device. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | cm of H2O | Duration of surgery |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | Post Operative Morbidity | We followed the patients 2 and 24 hours after the surgery for sore throat, hoarseness and dysphagia.The numbers represented here are the number of patients who reported sore throat at 2 hrs and after 24 hrs as per the protocol. | As per protocol,all the patients were followed up at 2 hrs and 24hrs to check for any postoperative hoarseness, sorethroat and difficulty swallowing. The numbers represent the number of patients who complained of postoperative morbidity. | Posted | Number | participants | 2 hrs and 24 hrs after surgery |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | Number of Failed Cases | We calculated the number of failed cases. As per protocol, that is number of patients in whom successful intubation was not achieved with the assigned device after 3 attempts. | As per protocol, a case is decided as a failed case when the patient was not able to be intubated with the assigned device after 3 attempts. | Posted | Number | Participants | Time taken for successful intubation |
|
|
|
| 0 |
| 73 |
| 0 |
| 73 |
| EG001 | Esophageal Tracheal Combitube(ETC) | Patients were randomly assigned into this group. The patients assisgned to this group were intubated with the device ETC. | 0 | 73 | 0 | 73 |
| EG002 | ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway (PLMA) | Patients were randomly assigned into this group. The patients in this group were intubated with the device PLMA. | 0 | 72 | 0 | 72 |
Not provided
Not provided
| D008919 |
| Investigative Techniques |
| D008397 | Masks |
| D011482 | Protective Devices |
| D004864 | Equipment and Supplies |
| D000067393 | Personal Protective Equipment |
| D008420 | Manufactured Materials |
| D013676 | Technology, Industry, and Agriculture |
| Odds ratio |
| 0.003 |
| Odds Ratio (OR) |
| 3.81 |
| 95 |
| 1.57 |
| 9.29 |
| No |
| Superiority or Other |
| Odds Ratio (OR) |
| 7.22 |
| 95 |
| 2.419 |
| 21.527 |
| No |
| Superiority or Other |