Comparison of blind oro-tracheal intubation through LMA Blockbuster and LMA Protector – A prospective randomized study
Background and Aims: The present study was planned to compare two devices, namely LMA Blockbuster and LMA Protector, as a conduit for endotracheal intubation. The study aimed to compare the first-pass success rate of blind intubation, time taken for successful intubation, and ease of intubation thro...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
2025-04-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/joacp.joacp_60_24 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850212280745066496 |
|---|---|
| author | Kiranpreet Kaur Tavleen Kaur Prashant Kumar Mamta Bhardwaj Svareen Kaur Suresh K. Singhal Sakshi Talwar Paramjeet Sandhu |
| author_facet | Kiranpreet Kaur Tavleen Kaur Prashant Kumar Mamta Bhardwaj Svareen Kaur Suresh K. Singhal Sakshi Talwar Paramjeet Sandhu |
| author_sort | Kiranpreet Kaur |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background and Aims:
The present study was planned to compare two devices, namely LMA Blockbuster and LMA Protector, as a conduit for endotracheal intubation. The study aimed to compare the first-pass success rate of blind intubation, time taken for successful intubation, and ease of intubation through both devices.
Material and Methods:
This prospective randomized study was conducted on 100 patients of either sex aged 18–60 years, belonging to ASA physical status I–II, with 50 patients in each group (group B – LMA Blockbuster, and group P – LMA Protector). All the patients received general anesthesia. The primary objective was to compare the success rate, ease of blind tracheal intubation, time taken for intubation, and number of attempts. Secondary objectives included assessing the success of supraglottic device (SAD) placement, oropharyngeal seal pressure, and hemodynamic changes.
Results:
The insertion time of the SAD was 8.18 ± 3.66 and 10.94 ± 6.66 s for groups B and P, respectively. The SAD was placed on the first attempt in 96.0% of patients in group B and 88% of patients in group P. The total time taken for successful intubation was comparable between the groups (P = 0.239). The ETT was placed in the first attempt in 88% and 78% patients in group B and group P, respectively (P = 0.8).
Conclusions:
We conclude that LMA Blockbuster and LMA Protector are both comparable and good intubating devices in terms of ease and success rate of intubation. However, LMA Blockbuster outperforms LMA Protector in terms of ease of insertion of SADs. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-056909ee63b74ee7931174d9dd3bbded |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 0970-9185 2231-2730 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-04-01 |
| publisher | Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology |
| spelling | doaj-art-056909ee63b74ee7931174d9dd3bbded2025-08-20T02:09:22ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsJournal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology0970-91852231-27302025-04-0141229229710.4103/joacp.joacp_60_24Comparison of blind oro-tracheal intubation through LMA Blockbuster and LMA Protector – A prospective randomized studyKiranpreet KaurTavleen KaurPrashant KumarMamta BhardwajSvareen KaurSuresh K. SinghalSakshi TalwarParamjeet SandhuBackground and Aims: The present study was planned to compare two devices, namely LMA Blockbuster and LMA Protector, as a conduit for endotracheal intubation. The study aimed to compare the first-pass success rate of blind intubation, time taken for successful intubation, and ease of intubation through both devices. Material and Methods: This prospective randomized study was conducted on 100 patients of either sex aged 18–60 years, belonging to ASA physical status I–II, with 50 patients in each group (group B – LMA Blockbuster, and group P – LMA Protector). All the patients received general anesthesia. The primary objective was to compare the success rate, ease of blind tracheal intubation, time taken for intubation, and number of attempts. Secondary objectives included assessing the success of supraglottic device (SAD) placement, oropharyngeal seal pressure, and hemodynamic changes. Results: The insertion time of the SAD was 8.18 ± 3.66 and 10.94 ± 6.66 s for groups B and P, respectively. The SAD was placed on the first attempt in 96.0% of patients in group B and 88% of patients in group P. The total time taken for successful intubation was comparable between the groups (P = 0.239). The ETT was placed in the first attempt in 88% and 78% patients in group B and group P, respectively (P = 0.8). Conclusions: We conclude that LMA Blockbuster and LMA Protector are both comparable and good intubating devices in terms of ease and success rate of intubation. However, LMA Blockbuster outperforms LMA Protector in terms of ease of insertion of SADs.https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/joacp.joacp_60_24lma blockbusterlma protectorsupraglottic devices |
| spellingShingle | Kiranpreet Kaur Tavleen Kaur Prashant Kumar Mamta Bhardwaj Svareen Kaur Suresh K. Singhal Sakshi Talwar Paramjeet Sandhu Comparison of blind oro-tracheal intubation through LMA Blockbuster and LMA Protector – A prospective randomized study Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology lma blockbuster lma protector supraglottic devices |
| title | Comparison of blind oro-tracheal intubation through LMA Blockbuster and LMA Protector – A prospective randomized study |
| title_full | Comparison of blind oro-tracheal intubation through LMA Blockbuster and LMA Protector – A prospective randomized study |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of blind oro-tracheal intubation through LMA Blockbuster and LMA Protector – A prospective randomized study |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of blind oro-tracheal intubation through LMA Blockbuster and LMA Protector – A prospective randomized study |
| title_short | Comparison of blind oro-tracheal intubation through LMA Blockbuster and LMA Protector – A prospective randomized study |
| title_sort | comparison of blind oro tracheal intubation through lma blockbuster and lma protector a prospective randomized study |
| topic | lma blockbuster lma protector supraglottic devices |
| url | https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/joacp.joacp_60_24 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kiranpreetkaur comparisonofblindorotrachealintubationthroughlmablockbusterandlmaprotectoraprospectiverandomizedstudy AT tavleenkaur comparisonofblindorotrachealintubationthroughlmablockbusterandlmaprotectoraprospectiverandomizedstudy AT prashantkumar comparisonofblindorotrachealintubationthroughlmablockbusterandlmaprotectoraprospectiverandomizedstudy AT mamtabhardwaj comparisonofblindorotrachealintubationthroughlmablockbusterandlmaprotectoraprospectiverandomizedstudy AT svareenkaur comparisonofblindorotrachealintubationthroughlmablockbusterandlmaprotectoraprospectiverandomizedstudy AT sureshksinghal comparisonofblindorotrachealintubationthroughlmablockbusterandlmaprotectoraprospectiverandomizedstudy AT sakshitalwar comparisonofblindorotrachealintubationthroughlmablockbusterandlmaprotectoraprospectiverandomizedstudy AT paramjeetsandhu comparisonofblindorotrachealintubationthroughlmablockbusterandlmaprotectoraprospectiverandomizedstudy |