Table 1
Relevant papers
| Reference | Study | Outcomes | Key results | Weaknesses |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 | Randomised crossover study 25 electively anaesthetised patients with manual in-line stabilisation. LMA crossed over with ILMA. Randomised first device selection | (1) Speed of placement(2) Ease of placement(3) Adequacy of ventilation based on chest movement, compliance and the presence of leak | (1) Insertion of ILMA was significantly faster than LMA (p<0.001)(2) Insertion of ILMA was significantly easier than LMA (p<0.001)(3) Adequate ventilation achieved in 100% of ILMA insertions v 88% of LMA | (1) Unblinded(2) Hospital based ASA 1–2 patients(3) Patients with neck/upper respiratory abnormality or at risk of aspiration excluded(4) Muscle relaxants used(5) Capnography/pulse oximetry not used |
| 13 | Randomised crossover study. 55 electively anaesthetised patients. Randomised to use either LMA or ILMA | (1) Speed of insertion(2) Successful ventilation as shown by positive end tidal CO2 | (1) No significant difference in mean insertion time(2) No significant difference in success of ventilation | (1) Unblinded(2) Hospital based female patients only(3) Inexperienced operators(4) BMI >30/reduced mouth opening/reduced neck movements excluded |
| 16 | Prospective study. 75 electively anaesthetised patients. 24 inexperienced operators. LMA crossed over with ILMA. Randomised first device selection | (1) Speed of insertion(2) Adequacy of ventilation based on chest expansion and end tidal CO2>4kPa(3) Pressure at which leak developed around device | (1) No significant difference in insertion time(2) No significant difference in success of insertion or ventilation(3) The ILMA was better at providing adequate ventilation without an audible leak p = 0.009 | (1) Unblinded(2) Hospital based ASA 1–2 patients(3) Inexperienced operators(4) Patients with risk factors for regurgitation excluded |
