Recent clinical trials on LMA Protector have shown that it is easy to insert and provides a higher oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) than other commonly used SADs. [1, 2] We hypothesised that LMA Protector would provide higher OLP than LMA …

A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials to compare the oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) and clinical performance of LMA ProSeal™ (Teleflex® Inc., Wayne, PA, USA) and i-gel® (Intersurgical Ltd, Wokingham, UK) in adults ...

Oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) of LMA Protector is reported to be higher compared to other second generation supraglottic devices (SGDs) indicating better seal with patient’s airway and hence enhanced safety.

Mar 15, 2022 · A higher OLP provides a better perilaryngeal seal, hence being able to withstand higher peak airway pressure before gases leak out and contribute to stomach insufflation. From our study, the mean OLP of LMA Protector™ Cuff Pilot™ was 30.72±8.60 cmH 2 O.

The LMA Protector™ enabled a higher OLP compared to the LMA Supreme™. This finding may be important for patients requiring a higher peak pressure for sufficient supraglottic airway device ventilation.

Background and aims: Oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) of LMA Protector is reported to be higher compared to other second generation supraglottic devices (SGDs) indicating better seal with patient's airway and hence enhanced safety.

mask airway (LMATM) SupremeTM has lower OLP com-pared with the LMA ProSealTM. Increased intracuff pressure of laryngeal mask airway devices may improve OLP but may result in more postoperative pharyngola-ryngeal adverse events. This study was designed to compare the OLP of the LMA Supreme at varying intracuff pressures.

Apr 11, 2024 · Proseal LMA has a higher OLP than Air-Q SP but average insertion time was better, and fiber-optic grading of laryngeal view was shorter with Air-Q SP. However, Air-Q SP and Proseal LMA were both effective for lung ventilation.

LMA Protector provided a significantly higher OLP and less requirement of CP adjustments but comparable first-attempt success rate, mean insertion time, fibre-optic view, and gastric tube insertion as compared to LMA ProSeal.

This prospective randomised trial investigated whether the LMA Protector was comparable to tracheal tube regarding respiratory parameters. Our primary outcome was to evaluate the oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) values for the LMA Protector and compare the peak airway pressure between groups.