A Comparative Study of the Air-Q Self Pressurized Airway Device with Blocker Versus the Proseal Laryngeal Mask Airway in Diagnostic Laparoscopy

Abdelrahman, Reham Ali Abdelhaleem; El-Refay, Nesrine Abdelrahaman; Algyar, Mohammad Fouad; El Kashef, Ahmed Mohamed

doi:10.21608/asmj.2025.357913.1379

A Comparative Study of the Air-Q Self Pressurized Airway Device with Blocker Versus the Proseal Laryngeal Mask Airway in Diagnostic Laparoscopy

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

¹ Department of Anesthesia, Surgical ICU and Pain Management, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Kasr Al-Ainy, 71th Kasr Al-Ainy Street, Postal Code 11562, Cairo, Egypt.

² Department of Anesthesiology , Surgical Intensive Care and Pain Medicine. Faculty of Medicine, Kafr Elsheikh University, Kafr Elsheikh , Egypt.

³ Department of Anesthesia, Surgical ICU and Pain Management, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt.

10.21608/asmj.2025.357913.1379

Abstract

Background: ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway (PLMA) is a well-established device used for airway management, while the Self-Pressurized Air-Q with Blocker (SP-Blocker) is a newer supraglottic airway device.
Objectives: Researchers compared SP-Blocker with PLMA under general anesthesia (GA).
Patients and Methods: 100ASAI&II women undergoing diagnostic gynecological laparoscopy in Trendelenburg position under GA were randomly assigned to 2 groups. Cases were divided equally into SP-Blocker and PLMA groups. Primary outcome was oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP). Secondary outcomes were peak airway pressure, plateau airway pressure, inspiratory tidal volume (ITV), expiratory tidal volume (ETV), leak volume (LV), leak fraction (LF), dynamic lung compliance (Cdyn)., and airway resistance(Raw). Primary and secondary outcomes were measured in T1 (10min.post-device insertion while patient in neutral position) and T2 (15min. post-pneumoperitonium with CO2).
Results: At T1: SP-Blocker revealed elevated mean OLP (cmH2O) (33.41±2.38 vs. 30.64±2.12 respectively; 95% CI -3.67 to -1.88, p<0.0001), increased mean ITV (ml) (571.2±66.7 vs.514.6±63.5 respectively; 95% CI -82.45 to -30.75, p=0.041), increased mean ETV (ml) (546.5±61.3 vs. 470.7±78.7 respectively; 95% CI -103.8 to -47.8, p<0.0001), lower mean LV & LF, and better Cdyn.(ml/cmH2O) (p=0.031) than PLMA. At T2: SP-Blocker and PLMA continued in the same manner as at T1. Mean insertion time (sec) was decreased in SP-Blocker group compared to PLMA group (18.21±3.8 vs. 20.36±4.33 respectively; 95% CI 0.53 to 3.77, p=0.0097). There were no significant differences between the studied groups in terms of ease of insertion, number of attempts, airway resistance, postoperative laryngopharyngeal morbidity or hemodynamic parameters at various time points.
Conclusions: SP-Blocker became equally effective alternative to PLMA.

Keywords

Main Subjects