JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (3) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lange, M. Articles by Kehl, F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lange, M. Articles by Kehl, F. Related Collections Airway

---

GENERAL ARTICLES

The Effectiveness and Patient Comfort of the Novel Streamlined Pharynx Airway Liner (SLIPA®) Compared with the Conventional Laryngeal Mask Airway in Ophthalmic Surgery

From the Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Franz Kehl, MD, PhD, DEAA, Universität Würzburg, Klinik und Poliklinik für Anästhesiologie, Zentrum Operative Medizin, Oberdürrbacher St. 6, 97080 Würzburg, Germany. Address e-mail to franz.kehl{at}mail.uni-wuerzburg.de.

BACKGROUND: The novel, disposable streamlined pharynx airway liner (SLIPA®) has recently been introduced into clinical practice. It has no inflatable cuff, because the shape of the SLIPA® closely resembles the anatomy of the pharynx.

METHODS: We compared the SLIPA® with the conventional laryngeal mask airway (LMA®) regarding handling, safety, sealing of the pharynx, and patient comfort in 124 adult patients (ASA I–III) undergoing ophthalmic surgery under general anesthesia.

RESULTS: Insertion of the SLIPA® was straightforward in 88%, slightly difficult in 10%, and obviously difficult in 0% of cases. The SLIPA® could not be inserted in 2% of patients. In the LMA® group, insertion was straightforward in 90%, slightly difficult in 8%, obviously difficult in 2%, and a failure in 0% of patients. Maximum seal pressure was 24 ± 6 mm H₂O with the SLIPA® and 24 ± 4 mm H₂O with the LMA®. Gastric air insufflation was noticed in 19% of patients in the SLIPA® group and 3% in the LMA® group (P < 0.05). No regurgitation of gastric contents was observed. Removal of the airway was uneventful in all cases. Blood traces were noted on the surface of the device in 20% in the SLIPA® versus 11% (n.s.) in the LMA® group. Complaints of a sore throat were recorded in 2% vs. 14% in the SLIPA® and the LMA® group, respectively.

CONCLUSION: The SLIPA® is a useful alternative to the conventional LMA® in patients undergoing minor surgery. However, it is associated with a higher incidence of gastric air insufflation, which may increase the risk of aspiration.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. Miller Laryngeal Mask Airway Classic and Streamlined Pharynx Airway Liner Airway Comparison Anesth. Analg., November 1, 2007; 105(5): 1508 - 1508. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Lange, N. Roewer, and F. Kehl The Conventional LMA(R): Benchmark for Assessing Supralaryngeal Airway Efficacy? Anesth. Analg., November 1, 2007; 105(5): 1509 - 1509. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Vamadevan and A. Diba The Conventional LMA(R): Benchmark for Assessing Supralaryngeal Airway Efficacy? Anesth. Analg., November 1, 2007; 105(5): 1508 - 1509. [Full Text] [PDF]

Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins with the assistance of Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2006 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999