Skip to main content
. 2015 Nov 27;7(11):319–325. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v7.i11.319

Table 1.

Summary of the studies investigating ventilation and aspiration with the laryngeal mask airway

Ref. Group n Ventila-tory efficiency (%) No. of insertion attempt (1st/2nd/3rd) Airway insertion time (s) OLP (cm H2O) Peak airway pressure before pneumoperi-toneum (cm H2O) Peak airway pressure after pneumoperi-toneum (cm H2O) Blood on mask (%)
Lu et al[12], 2002 LMA-P 40 100 33/7/0 - 29 ± 6 18.3 ± 3 24.1 ± 2 15
LMA-C 40 80 40/0/0 - 19 ± 4 17.6 ± 2 22.7 ± 3
Maltby et al[13], 2002 LMA-P 50 92 - - 34 ± 4 18 ± 5 25 ± 5 -
Sharma et al[15], 2010 LMA-P 30 100 24/5/1 14.2 ± 5.5 38.9 ± 3.2 15.9 ± 3.2 21.5 ± 3.2 26.6
i-gel 30 100 28/2/0 13.6 ± 4.2 35.6 ± 4.8 14.9 ± 2.9 20 ± 3.7 10
Beleña et al[16], 2011 LMA-S 100 100 91/0/0 12 ± 4.6 28.8 ± 5.2 17.5 ± 3.3 22.9 ± 1 0
Hoşten et al[17], 2012 LMA-P 29 100 27/2/0 15.6 ± 6 27 ± 4.7 6.8
- -
LMA-S 30 100 28/2/0 12.5 ± 6 27 ± 2.9 3.3
Beleña et al[18], 2013 LMA-P 60 100 51/9/0 11.2 ± 4 30.7 ± 6 19 ± 3 26 ± 5 3.3
LMA-S 60 100 55/5/0 11.8 ± 2 26.8 ± 4 18 ± 4 24 ± 4 0

Values are presented as numbers, mean ± SD, numbers or percentage. LMA-C: Laryngeal mask airway classic; LMA-P: Laryngeal mask airway Proseal; LMA-S: Laryngeal mask airway Supreme; OLP: Oropharyngeal leak pressure.