Laryngeal Mask Airway Versus Air Q Laryngeal Airway

NCT04021407 | Completed DMC

• 1 other identifier: LMA versus Air Q
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 72
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

Nowadays, supraglottic airway devices are simple and effective alternatives to endotracheal intubation. Both laryngeal mask airway LMA and air-Q airway are supraglottic airway devices that can be used to maintain and protect airways from aspiration of secretions and blood during DCR surgery. The present study was designed to compare standard LMA versus air Q as regards the sealing effect and aspiration of blood in DCR surgery.

Conditions

Airway Devices

Keywords

AirQ; LMA; dacrocystorhinostomy surgery

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

• Oro pharyngeal leak pressure in (cmH2O)

  By setting the pop-off valve to limit peak airway pressure to 40 cm H2O and allowing airway pressure to increase at a fresh gas flow of 3 L/min until audible noise was heard over the mouth and no further increase in airway pressure is observed.

  Just after insertion of supraglottic airway devices

Secondary Outcomes (1)

• Leak fraction in (%)

  Just after insertion of supraglottic airway devices

Study Arms (2)

LMA

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

36 patients were ventilated with LMA during dacryocystorhinostomy surgery

Device: LMA group

AirQ

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

36 patients each were ventilated with air Q airway during dacryocystorhinostomy surgery

Device: AirQ group

Interventions

LMA group DEVICE

patients were ventilated with LMA

LMA

AirQ group DEVICE

patients were ventilated with AirQ airway

AirQ

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years - 60 Years
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64)

You may qualify if:

• Both sex
• Age: 18-60 years
• ASA I-II
• Patients scheduled for dacryocystorhinostomy surgery

You may not qualify if:

• Any pathology of the neck, upper respiratory tract, upper alimentary tract
• Patients with a history of gastric regurgitation, heartburn
• Morbid obese,
• Patients with esophageal reflux (hiatus hernia)
• Anticipating difficult airway management
• Patients with coagulation disorders

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Menoufia University: lead

Study Sites (1)

Ashraf Eskandr

Shibīn al Kawm, Monufia Governorate, 1234, Egypt

Location

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: DOUBLE
• Who Masked: PARTICIPANT, OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
• Masking Details: Participiant Investigator
• Purpose: SUPPORTIVE CARE
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: assistant professor of anesthesia, icu

Model Details: Parallel assignment

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: July 10, 2019
• First Posted: July 16, 2019
• Study Start: April 1, 2018
• Primary Completion: June 1, 2019
• Study Completion: June 1, 2019
• Last Updated: July 16, 2019

Record last verified: 2019-07

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will not share

Locations

EG (1)