Supraglottic Airway DevicesSGADsNCT06850675
Comparison of Clinical Performance of Supraglottic Airway Devices
An observational study of Supraglottic Airway Devices and Geriatric Patient, run by Ege University at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
Trial summary
Abstract Aim: To compare the clinical performance and pharyngolaryngeal complications of two second-generation, supraglottic airway devices (SGAD), the I-gel and Laryngeal Mask Airway-Supreme (LMA-Supreme), in geriatric patients undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 65 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Supraglottic Airway Devices, Geriatric Patient
- What is being tested?
- Clinical performance
- How many people
- 120 participants
- Where
- 1 siteTurkey (Türkiye)
- Study dates
- 17 Apr 2019to 17 May 2020
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 65 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Older adult
Study population: patients aged 65 and older, who all had an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of I-III, and who were scheduled for elective urological surgery under general anesthesia were prospectively recruited.
Who may be able to join
- ≥65 age patients
- American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of I-III
- elective urological surgery
Who cannot join
- emergency surgery,
- unstable vital signs
- history of or suspicion of a difficult airway
- preoperative sore throat, or a high risk of aspiration
- body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m²
- gastroesophageal reflux
Show all 13Show fewer
- hiatal hernia
- diabetic gastroparesis or a history of medications affecting gastrointestinal motility
- patients with a high risk of respiratory complications, such as those with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or recent pneumonia
- abnormalities of the oral cavity or pharynx,
- cervical spine issues,
- communication difficulties
- scheduled for surgeries lasting ≥ 90 minutes
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Turkey (Türkiye)1 site
Ege University Medical Faculty Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation
Izmir, Bornova, 35100
About this study
Official title: Clinical Performance Comparison of the I-gel and Laryngeal Mask Airway-Supreme in Geriatric Patients: A Prospective Study
Abstract
Aim: To compare the clinical performance and pharyngolaryngeal complications of two second-generation, supraglottic airway devices (SGAD), the I-gel and Laryngeal Mask Airway-Supreme (LMA-Supreme), in geriatric patients undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia.
Materials and Methods: After hospital ethics committee approval (19-4.1T/40- 17.04.2019) and written informed consent, patients aged 65 years and older, with an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of I-III, and who were scheduled for elective urological surgery under general anesthesia, were included prospectively. The patients were randomly divided into two equal sized groups, I-gel and LMA-supreme. The two groups were evaluated and compared for ease of supraglottic airway device insertion, time of insertion, success rate at first insertion, number of attempts, ease of gastric tube insertion, oropharyngeal leak pressure, and intraoperative and postoperative complications.
Read the detailed description
After receiving approval from the Institutional Review Board (19-4.1T/40; 17.04.2019), patients aged 65 and older, who all had an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of I-III, and who were scheduled for elective urological surgery under general anesthesia were prospectively recruited. Informed consent was obtained, either from the patients themselves or from a legal representative. Patients were excluded from the study if they were scheduled for emergency surgery, had unstable vital signs, a history of or suspicion of a difficult airway, preoperative sore throat, or a high risk of aspiration. The latter included individuals with a body mass index greater than 35 kg/m², gastroesophageal reflux, hiatal hernia, diabetic gastroparesis, or a history of medications affecting gastrointestinal motility. In addition, patients with a high risk of respiratory complications, such as those with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or recent pneumonia, abnormalities of the oral cavity or pharynx, cervical spine issues, communication difficulties, or those scheduled for surgeries lasting more than 90 minutes were also excluded.
The study took place from April 2019 to April 2020. The study included patients who were randomly assigned to two equally sized groups: the Laryngeal Mask Airway-Supreme (LMA-S) group and the I-gel group. This random assignment was conducted using a computer-assisted randomization method (www.randomizer.org). The insertion of the supraglottic airway device was performed by the same anesthesiologist, who had experience with at least 200 insertions of each type of supraglottic airway device and a first-attempt failure rate of less than 5% in a general patient population. During the procedure, patients were placed in the supine position with a standard pillow supporting their heads. Each device was prepared according to the manufacturer's recommendations, with the posterior and lateral sides lubricated using a water-soluble gel. The size of each device was selected based on the patient's weight, following the manufacturer's guidelines.
Upon the patient's admission to the operating room, standard monitoring was performed, which included non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP), pulse oximetry (SpO2), and electrocardiography (ECG). Preoxygenation was conducted for a minimum of three minutes using 100% oxygen at a fresh gas flow rate of 8 L/min. Anesthesia was induced intravenously with 1 mg/kg of 2% lidocaine, 1-2 µg/kg of fentanyl, and 2-3 mg/kg of propofol. No neuromuscular blocking agents were administered. The patients were manually ventilated with 100% oxygen and 2% sevoflurane until an adequate depth of anesthesia was achieved. This was determined by adequate jaw relaxation observed during the jaw thrust maneuver and the disappearance of the eyelash reflex. Once these criteria were met, the selected supraglottic airway device was inserted.
During the insertion of the I-gel, it was held by the bite block and advanced while the patient was in the "sniffing" position. This involved extending the head at the atlanto-occipital joint and flexing the neck while pushing the jaw downward. The device was directed towards the palate through the mouth and moved backward and downward until resistance was encountered.
During the insertion of the LMA-Supreme, the cuff was fully deflated first. The distal tip was then positioned against the inside of the upper teeth or gums. Using a slight crosswise approach, the device was gently slid inward, following the tongue, and advanced until resistance was felt. Once it was properly positioned, the cuff of the LMA-Supreme was inflated to a pressure of 60 cm H2O (measured with a VBM pressure gauge from Germany) and monitored regularly to maintain a constant cuff pressure. Adequate ventilation was verified through bilateral chest expansion, auscultation of lung sounds, and monitoring end-tidal CO2 (ETCO2) waveforms. If adequate ventilation was not achieved, the "jaw thrust maneuver" was attempted, along with neck extension or flexion, and made gentle adjustments to the position of the SGAD to ensure proper placement. Following successful placement, the patients were placed on a volume-controlled mode of mechanical ventilation using a mixture of 50%/50% oxygen and air. The tidal volume was set at 5-6 mL/kg, with a respiratory rate of 10-12 breaths per minute and an ETCO2 level maintained between 35-40 mmHg. Anesthesia was sustained with 1.0-2.0% sevoflurane in an oxygen/air mixture, along with an infusion of remifentanil at a rate of 0.25-0.5 µg/kg/min.
Oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) was measured during the operation after the SGAD was properly positioned. Measurements were taken at 15-minute intervals throughout the procedure and at the end of the surgery, just before removing the SGAD. OLP was determined by observing the pressure at which air leaked from the mouth, utilizing a fixed fresh gas flow of 5 L/min. The expiratory (APL) valve was closed at 30 cmH2O to ensure that the peak airway pressure did not exceed 40 cmH2O. The assessment of OLP used a five-point scale: 1=excellent (no air leak at 30 cmH2O); 2=good (air leak at 18-20 cmH2O); 3=moderate (air leak at 10-16 cmH2O); 4=poor (air leak at ≤ 8 cmH2O); and 5=placement/ventilation failure [16].
The placement time for the SGADs is defined as the duration between the removal of the face mask and the observation of the first ETCO2 waveform. The ease of insertion was evaluated using a 3-point scale: 1=easy (the device was placed successfully on the first attempt without resistance and without the need for additional maneuvers); 2=difficult (the device was placed on the first attempt with slight resistance, requiring either upward or downward movement of the device or lifting of the chin); or 3=very difficult (placement was only achieved on the second attempt despite maneuvers). In addition, the number of attempts and the ease of gastric tube insertion were assessed also using a 3-point scale after lubricating the gastric tube and advancing it through the gastric channel following SGAD placement: 1=first attempt (successful insertion on the first try); 2=second attempt (successful insertion on the second try); or 3=failure (insertion was not successful). Other recorded parameters included LMA-Supreme cuff pressure, operation duration (in minutes), anesthesia duration (in minutes), and intraoperative complications. The complications noted included dental, lip, and tongue injuries, hiccups, respiratory issues, such as desaturation SpO2 ≤ 92%, sudden increase in peak airway pressure, and/or changes in capnogram waveform, regurgitation/aspiration, laryngospasm, and apnea.
At the end of the operation, patients were given 1 mg/kg of tramadol and 10 mg/kg of paracetamol for pain management. The supraglottic airway device was removed once the patient demonstrated adequate spontaneous respiration and the ability to respond to verbal commands. During this process, any adverse events, such as laryngospasm, coughing, desaturation, and injuries to the tongue, teeth, or lips, as well as blood contamination on the laryngeal mask, were recorded. Patients were assessed for throat pain, hoarseness, and dysphagia at the second and twelfth hours postoperatively, with the symptoms graded as either present or absent.
Placing a supraglottic airway in patients undergoing surgery is a routine aspect of our anesthesia practices. The airway devices used in this study were standard for our procedures, and there were no non-routine applications performed on the patients included in the study. We only observed and recorded data from the patients.
- Conditions
- Supraglottic Airway Devices, Geriatric Patient
- Being tested
- Clinical performance
- Keywords
- supraglottic airway device, I-gel, LMA-Supreme, geriatric patients, clinical performance
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Clinical performanceOther
Supraglottic airway devices were evaluated for ease of insertion, time of insertion, success rate at first attempt, number of attempts, ease of gastric tube insertion, oropharyngeal leak pressure, and intraoperative and postoperative complications
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| group ı-gel | The patients participating in the study were randomly assigned to two groups Receives: Other: Clinical performance | |
| group lma-s | The patients participating in the study were randomly assigned to two groups Receives: Other: Clinical performance |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
The ease of insertion of supraglottic airway devices
The ease of insertion was evaluated using a 3-point scale: 1=easy (the device was placed successfully on the first attempt without resistance and without the need for additional maneuvers); 2=difficult (the device was placed on the first attempt with slight resistance, requiring either upward or downward movement of the device or lifting of the chin); or 3=very difficult (placement was only achieved on the second attempt despite maneuvers).
Measured: intraoperative period
The time of insertion of supraglottic airway devices
The placement time for the supraglottic airway devices is defined as the duration between the removal of the face mask and the observation of the first end tidal carbon dioxide waveform
Measured: intraoperative period
The ease of gastric tube insertion of supraglottic airway devices
The number of attempts and the ease of gastric tube insertion were assessed also using a 3-point scale after lubricating the gastric tube and advancing it through the gastric channel following SGAD placement: 1=first attempt (successful insertion on the first try); 2=second attempt (successful insertion on the second try); or 3=failure (insertion was not successful
Measured: intraoperative period
oropharyngeal leak pressure of supraglottic airway devices
Oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) was measured during the operation after the SGAD was properly positioned. Measurements were taken at 15-minute intervals throughout the procedure and at the end of the surgery, just before removing the SGAD. OLP was determined by observing the pressure at which air leaked from the mouth, utilizing a fixed fresh gas flow of 5 L/min. The expiratory (APL) valve was closed at 30 cmH2O to ensure that the peak airway pressure did not exceed 40 cmH2O. The assessment of OLP used a five-point scale: 1=excellent (no air leak at 30 cmH2O); 2=good (air leak at 18-20 cmH2O); 3=moderate (air leak at 10-16 cmH2O); 4=poor (air leak at ≤ 8 cmH2O); and 5=placement/ventilation failure
Measured: intraoperative period
Secondary outcomes (3)
postoperative pharyngolaryngeal complications
Patients were assessed for throat pain at the second and twelfth hours postoperatively, with the symptoms graded as either present or absent
Measured: up to postoperative 12 hour
postoperative pharyngolaryngeal complications
Patients were assessed for hoarseness at the second and twelfth hours postoperatively, with the symptoms graded as either present or absent
Measured: up to postoperative 12 hour
postoperative pharyngolaryngeal complications
Patients were assessed for dysphagia at the second and twelfth hours postoperatively, with the symptoms graded as either present or absent
Measured: up to postoperative 12 hour
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted27 Feb 2025
- Study start17 Apr 2019
- Primary completion17 Apr 2020
- Study completion17 May 2020
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (2)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Supraglottic Airway DevicesStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Ege UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 120 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Ege University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Nursen Karaca, Ege University
- Investigators
- NURSEN KARACA, MEDİCAL DOCTOR, Principal investigator, Ege University Medical Faculty, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06850675
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 19-4.1T/40
- Acronym
- SGADs
- Status last verified
- Feb 2025
- First submitted
- 13 Feb 2025
- Last updated
- 27 Feb 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided: I have not made a decision on this yet
Publications
Kim EM, Kim MS, Koo BN, Lee JR, Lee YS, Lee JH. Clinical efficacy of the classic laryngeal mask airway in elderly patients: a comparison with young adult patients. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2015 Dec;68(6):568-74. doi: 10.4097/kjae.2015.68.6.568. Epub 2015 Nov 25.
PubMed 26634080Chen X, Jiao J, Cong X, Liu L, Wu X. A comparison of the performance of the I-gel vs. the LMA-Sduring anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One. 2013 Aug 12;8(8):e71910. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071910. eCollection 2013.
PubMed 23951266
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 27 Feb 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Clinical Performance Comparison of the I-gel and Laryngeal Mask Airway-Supreme in Geriatric Patients: A Prospective Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06850675
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SGADs / 19-4.1T/40
- Conditions
- Supraglottic Airway Devices, Geriatric Patient
- Keywords
- supraglottic airway device, I-gel, LMA-Supreme, geriatric patients, clinical performance
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 120 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Ege UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 17 Apr 2019 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 17 Apr 2020 (actual)
- Study completion
- 17 May 2020 (actual)
- First posted
- 27 Feb 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Abstract
Aim: To compare the clinical performance and pharyngolaryngeal complications of two second-generation, supraglottic airway devices (SGAD), the I-gel and Laryngeal Mask Airway-Supreme (LMA-Supreme), in geriatric patients undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia.
Materials and Methods: After hospital ethics committee approval (19-4.1T/40- 17.04.2019) and written informed consent, patients aged 65 years and older, with an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of I-III, and who were scheduled for elective urological surgery under general anesthesia, were included prospectively. The patients were randomly divided into two equal sized groups, I-gel and LMA-supreme. The two groups were evaluated and compared for ease of supraglottic airway device insertion, time of insertion, success rate at first insertion, number of attempts, ease of gastric tube insertion, oropharyngeal leak pressure, and intraoperative and postoperative complications.
Detailed description
After receiving approval from the Institutional Review Board (19-4.1T/40; 17.04.2019), patients aged 65 and older, who all had an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of I-III, and who were scheduled for elective urological surgery under general anesthesia were prospectively recruited. Informed consent was obtained, either from the patients themselves or from a legal representative. Patients were excluded from the study if they were scheduled for emergency surgery, had unstable vital signs, a history of or suspicion of a difficult airway, preoperative sore throat, or a high risk of aspiration. The latter included individuals with a body mass index greater than 35 kg/m², gastroesophageal reflux, hiatal hernia, diabetic gastroparesis, or a history of medications affecting gastrointestinal motility. In addition, patients with a high risk of respiratory complications, such as those with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or recent pneumonia, abnormalities of the oral cavity or pharynx, cervical spine issues, communication difficulties, or those scheduled for surgeries lasting more than 90 minutes were also excluded.
The study took place from April 2019 to April 2020. The study included patients who were randomly assigned to two equally sized groups: the Laryngeal Mask Airway-Supreme (LMA-S) group and the I-gel group. This random assignment was conducted using a computer-assisted randomization method (www.randomizer.org). The insertion of the supraglottic airway device was performed by the same anesthesiologist, who had experience with at least 200 insertions of each type of supraglottic airway device and a first-attempt failure rate of less than 5% in a general patient population. During the procedure, patients were placed in the supine position with a standard pillow supporting their heads. Each device was prepared according to the manufacturer's recommendations, with the posterior and lateral sides lubricated using a water-soluble gel. The size of each device was selected based on the patient's weight, following the manufacturer's guidelines.
Upon the patient's admission to the operating room, standard monitoring was performed, which included non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP), pulse oximetry (SpO2), and electrocardiography (ECG). Preoxygenation was conducted for a minimum of three minutes using 100% oxygen at a fresh gas flow rate of 8 L/min. Anesthesia was induced intravenously with 1 mg/kg of 2% lidocaine, 1-2 µg/kg of fentanyl, and 2-3 mg/kg of propofol. No neuromuscular blocking agents were administered. The patients were manually ventilated with 100% oxygen and 2% sevoflurane until an adequate depth of anesthesia was achieved. This was determined by adequate jaw relaxation observed during the jaw thrust maneuver and the disappearance of the eyelash reflex. Once these criteria were met, the selected supraglottic airway device was inserted.
During the insertion of the I-gel, it was held by the bite block and advanced while the patient was in the "sniffing" position. This involved extending the head at the atlanto-occipital joint and flexing the neck while pushing the jaw downward. The device was directed towards the palate through the mouth and moved backward and downward until resistance was encountered.
During the insertion of the LMA-Supreme, the cuff was fully deflated first. The distal tip was then positioned against the inside of the upper teeth or gums. Using a slight crosswise approach, the device was gently slid inward, following the tongue, and advanced until resistance was felt. Once it was properly positioned, the cuff of the LMA-Supreme was inflated to a pressure of 60 cm H2O (measured with a VBM pressure gauge from Germany) and monitored regularly to maintain a constant cuff pressure. Adequate ventilation was verified through bilateral chest expansion, auscultation of lung sounds, and monitoring end-tidal CO2 (ETCO2) waveforms. If adequate ventilation was not achieved, the "jaw thrust maneuver" was attempted, along with neck extension or flexion, and made gentle adjustments to the position of the SGAD to ensure proper placement. Following successful placement, the patients were placed on a volume-controlled mode of mechanical ventilation using a mixture of 50%/50% oxygen and air. The tidal volume was set at 5-6 mL/kg, with a respiratory rate of 10-12 breaths per minute and an ETCO2 level maintained between 35-40 mmHg. Anesthesia was sustained with 1.0-2.0% sevoflurane in an oxygen/air mixture, along with an infusion of remifentanil at a rate of 0.25-0.5 µg/kg/min.
Oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) was measured during the operation after the SGAD was properly positioned. Measurements were taken at 15-minute intervals throughout the procedure and at the end of the surgery, just before removing the SGAD. OLP was determined by observing the pressure at which air leaked from the mouth, utilizing a fixed fresh gas flow of 5 L/min. The expiratory (APL) valve was closed at 30 cmH2O to ensure that the peak airway pressure did not exceed 40 cmH2O. The assessment of OLP used a five-point scale: 1=excellent (no air leak at 30 cmH2O); 2=good (air leak at 18-20 cmH2O); 3=moderate (air leak at 10-16 cmH2O); 4=poor (air leak at ≤ 8 cmH2O); and 5=placement/ventilation failure [16].
The placement time for the SGADs is defined as the duration between the removal of the face mask and the observation of the first ETCO2 waveform. The ease of insertion was evaluated using a 3-point scale: 1=easy (the device was placed successfully on the first attempt without resistance and without the need for additional maneuvers); 2=difficult (the device was placed on the first attempt with slight resistance, requiring either upward or downward movement of the device or lifting of the chin); or 3=very difficult (placement was only achieved on the second attempt despite maneuvers). In addition, the number of attempts and the ease of gastric tube insertion were assessed also using a 3-point scale after lubricating the gastric tube and advancing it through the gastric channel following SGAD placement: 1=first attempt (successful insertion on the first try); 2=second attempt (successful insertion on the second try); or 3=failure (insertion was not successful). Other recorded parameters included LMA-Supreme cuff pressure, operation duration (in minutes), anesthesia duration (in minutes), and intraoperative complications. The complications noted included dental, lip, and tongue injuries, hiccups, respiratory issues, such as desaturation SpO2 ≤ 92%, sudden increase in peak airway pressure, and/or changes in capnogram waveform, regurgitation/aspiration, laryngospasm, and apnea.
At the end of the operation, patients were given 1 mg/kg of tramadol and 10 mg/kg of paracetamol for pain management. The supraglottic airway device was removed once the patient demonstrated adequate spontaneous respiration and the ability to respond to verbal commands. During this process, any adverse events, such as laryngospasm, coughing, desaturation, and injuries to the tongue, teeth, or lips, as well as blood contamination on the laryngeal mask, were recorded. Patients were assessed for throat pain, hoarseness, and dysphagia at the second and twelfth hours postoperatively, with the symptoms graded as either present or absent.
Placing a supraglottic airway in patients undergoing surgery is a routine aspect of our anesthesia practices. The airway devices used in this study were standard for our procedures, and there were no non-routine applications performed on the patients included in the study. We only observed and recorded data from the patients.
Study design
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| group ı-gel | – | Other: Clinical performanceThe patients participating in the study were randomly assigned to two groups |
| group lma-s | – | Other: Clinical performanceThe patients participating in the study were randomly assigned to two groups |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 65 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Older adult
- Study population
- patients aged 65 and older, who all had an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of I-III, and who were scheduled for elective urological surgery under general anesthesia were prospectively recruited.
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- ≥65 age patients
- American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of I-III
- elective urological surgery
Key exclusion criteria (13 listed)
- emergency surgery,
- unstable vital signs
- history of or suspicion of a difficult airway
- preoperative sore throat, or a high risk of aspiration
- body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m²
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Clinical performanceSupraglottic airway devices were evaluated for ease of insertion, time of insertion, success rate at first attempt, number of attempts, ease of gastric tube insertion, oropharyngeal leak pressure, and intraoperative and postoperative complications | Other | group lma-s, group ı-gel |
Primary outcome
The ease of insertion of supraglottic airway devices
Time frame: intraoperative period
The ease of insertion was evaluated using a 3-point scale: 1=easy (the device was placed successfully on the first attempt without resistance and without the need for additional maneuvers); 2=difficult (the device was placed on the first attempt with slight resistance, requiring either upward or downward movement of the device or lifting of the chin); or 3=very difficult (placement was only achieved on the second attempt despite maneuvers).
The time of insertion of supraglottic airway devices
Time frame: intraoperative period
The placement time for the supraglottic airway devices is defined as the duration between the removal of the face mask and the observation of the first end tidal carbon dioxide waveform
The ease of gastric tube insertion of supraglottic airway devices
Time frame: intraoperative period
The number of attempts and the ease of gastric tube insertion were assessed also using a 3-point scale after lubricating the gastric tube and advancing it through the gastric channel following SGAD placement: 1=first attempt (successful insertion on the first try); 2=second attempt (successful insertion on the second try); or 3=failure (insertion was not successful
oropharyngeal leak pressure of supraglottic airway devices
Time frame: intraoperative period
Oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) was measured during the operation after the SGAD was properly positioned. Measurements were taken at 15-minute intervals throughout the procedure and at the end of the surgery, just before removing the SGAD. OLP was determined by observing the pressure at which air leaked from the mouth, utilizing a fixed fresh gas flow of 5 L/min. The expiratory (APL) valve was closed at 30 cmH2O to ensure that the peak airway pressure did not exceed 40 cmH2O. The assessment of OLP used a five-point scale: 1=excellent (no air leak at 30 cmH2O); 2=good (air leak at 18-20 cmH2O); 3=moderate (air leak at 10-16 cmH2O); 4=poor (air leak at ≤ 8 cmH2O); and 5=placement/ventilation failure
3 secondary outcomes
postoperative pharyngolaryngeal complications
Time frame: up to postoperative 12 hour
postoperative pharyngolaryngeal complications
Time frame: up to postoperative 12 hour
postoperative pharyngolaryngeal complications
Time frame: up to postoperative 12 hour
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 27 Feb 2025.
- Results publication: PubMed 26634080Kim EM, Kim MS, Koo BN, Lee JR, Lee YS, Lee JH. Clinical efficacy of the classic laryngeal mask airway in elderly patients: a comparison with young adult patients. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2015 Dec;68(6):568-74. doi: 10.4097/kjae.2015.68.6.568. Epub 2015 Nov 25.
- Results publication: PubMed 23951266Chen X, Jiao J, Cong X, Liu L, Wu X. A comparison of the performance of the I-gel vs. the LMA-Sduring anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One. 2013 Aug 12;8(8):e71910. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071910. eCollection 2013.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided. I have not made a decision on this yet
Related trials for Supraglottic Airway Devices
Not yet recruiting
A Randomized Controlled SaCo-VLM Trial
General Anaesthesia Using Supraglotic Airway
Not yet recruiting
Tizanidine Premedication Versus Placebo for Laryngeal Mask Airway Insertion and Recovery in Adults Undergoing Ambulatory Surgery
Airway Management
Recruiting
Comparing Surfactant Administration Through Supraglottic Airway and Thin Catheter for Preterm Infants
Surfactant, Respiratory Distress Syndrome (Neonatal)
Not yet recruiting
Comparison of Second- and Third-Generation Laryngeal Mask Airway in Pediatric Patients
Airway Management, Anesthesia, General
Not yet recruitingPhase 4
Effect of Neuromuscular Blocking Agent Use on Video Laryngeal Mask Airway Insertion
Airway Management, Supraglottic Airway Device Insertion
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
NURSEN KARACA, MEDİCAL DOCTOR principal investigator
Ege University Medical Faculty, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Supraglottic Airway Devices and Geriatric Patient, run by Ege University at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 13 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 27 Feb 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye). Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
The ease of insertion of supraglottic airway devices (time frame: intraoperative period). The study lists 4 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06850675, which also lists 2 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 27 Feb 2025.