ANAESTHESIOLOGY - GENERAL ANAESTHESIA / ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Figure from article: In-vitro evaluation of the...
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Supraglottic airway devices (SGAs) are essential tools in anesthesia and emergency medicine and are easier to teach than endotracheal intubation. The Singularity Air is a recently introduced second-generation laryngeal mask featuring an adjustable shaft angle to improve sealing. This study compared its bench performance between medical personnel with and without airway management training.

Material and methods:
In this randomized, controlled in-vitro study, medical personnel each performed five consecutive insertions using the Singularity Air and a comparator device. Study Part A included 20 participants without anesthesia training, who used the LMA Unique. Study Part B included 20 anesthesia-trained staff, who used the Ambu AuraGain. The primary endpoint was time to successful ventilation, defined as visible chest movement of the mannequin. Participants rated insertion difficulty on a 0–10 scale.

Results:
Overall insertion success was 99–100% across all devices. For the Singularity Air, median time to successful ventilation on the first attempt was 17 seconds (IQR 10–22) in the non-anesthesiology group and 12 seconds (IQR 10–14) in the anesthesia-trained group (P = 0.287). By the fifth attempt, both groups achieved 7.5 seconds (IQR 5–10 and 6–8, respectively; P = 0.674). Time to ventilation and difficulty ratings were low and comparable to the established devices. The non-anesthesiology participants improved more between the first and fifth attempts than anesthesia-trained participants (P = 0.152).

Conclusions:
The Singularity Air laryngeal mask achieved a high success rate and comparable time to ventilation in an in-vitro study when used by acute care medical personnel, regardless of prior airway management training. Larger clinical studies are warranted to confirm these findings and evaluate performance in real patients.
REFERENCES (17)
1.
Soar J, Böttiger BW, Carli P, Couper K, Deakin CD, Djärv T, et al. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: adult advanced life support. Resuscitation 2021; 161: 115-151. DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2021.02.010.
 
2.
Vaida S, Gaitini L, Somri M, Matter I, Prozesky J. Airway management during the last 100 years. Crit Care Clin 2023; 39: 451-464. DOI: 10.1016/j.ccc.2022.12.003.
 
3.
Brain AI. The development of the Laryngeal Mask – a brief history of the invention, early clinical studies and experimental work from which the Laryngeal Mask evolved. Eur J Anaesthesiol Suppl 1991; 4: 5-17.
 
4.
Verghese C, Brimacombe JR. Survey of laryngeal mask airway usage in 11,910 patients: safety and efficacy for conventional and nonconventional usage. Anesth Analg 1996; 82: 129-133. DOI: 10.1097/00000539-199601000-00023.
 
5.
Bollucuoglu K, Baytar C, Kucukosman G, Ayoglu H. The placement of four different supraglottic airway devices by medical students: a manikin study. Ann Med 2023; 55: 2282746. DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2023.2282746.
 
6.
Frerk C, Mitchell VS, McNarry AF, Mendonca C, Bhagrath R, Patel A, et al. Difficult Airway Society 2015 guidelines for management of unanticipated difficult intubation in adults. Br J Anaesth 2015; 115: 827-848. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aev371.
 
7.
Apfelbaum JL, Hagberg CA, Connis RT, Abdelmalak BB, Agarkar M, Dutton RP, et al. 2022 American Society of Anesthesiologists Practice Guidelines for Management of the Difficult Airway. Anesthesiology 2022; 136: 31-81. DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000004002.
 
8.
van Zundert AAJ, Gatt SP, van Zundert T, Hagberg CA, Pandit JJ. Supraglottic airway devices: present state and outlook for 2050. Anesth Analg 2024; 138: 337-349. DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000006673.
 
9.
An J, Nam SB, Lee JS, Lee J, Yoo H, Lee HM, Kim MS. Comparison of the i-gel and other supraglottic airways in adult manikin studies: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017; 96: e5801. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000005801.
 
10.
Liu ZJ, Yi J, Chen WY, Zhang XH, Huang YG. Comparison of learning performance of 2 intubating laryngeal mask airways in novice: a randomized crossover manikin study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017; 96: e6905. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000006905.
 
11.
Gasteiger L, Hornung R, Woyke S, Hoerner E, Neururer S, Moser B. Evaluation of the New SingularityTM Air versus Ambu® Aura GainTM: a randomized, crossover mannequin study. J Clin Med 2022; 11: 7266. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11247266.
 
12.
Martins J, Beutel B, Ettlin N, Nickel N, Wüthrich R, Sandoz R, et al. Prospective clinical evaluation of the singularity air laryngeal mask in adult patients. J Clin Med 2023; 12: 7312. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12237312.
 
13.
Henlin T, Sotak M, Kovaricek P, Tyll T, Balcarek L, Michalek P. Comparison of five 2nd-generation supraglottic airway devices for airway management performed by novice military operators. Biomed Res Int 2015; 2015: 201898. DOI: 10.1155/2015/201898.
 
14.
Wong DT, Ooi A, Singh KP, Dallaire A, Meliana V, Lau J, et al. Comparison of oropharyngeal leak pressure between the Ambu® AuraGain and the LMA® Supreme supraglottic airways: a randomized-controlled trial. Can J Anaesth 2018; 65: 797-805. DOI: 10.1007/s12630-018-1120-4.
 
15.
Kriege M, Piepho T, Zanker S, Alflen C, Heid F, Noppens RR. LMA Supreme and Ambu® AuraGain in anesthetized adult patients: a prospective observational study. Minerva Anestesiol 2017; 83: 165-174. DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.16.11112-5.
 
16.
Svendsen CN, Rosenstock CV, Glargaard GL, Strom C, Lange KHW, Lundstrom LH. AuraGain versus i-gel for bronchoscopic intubation under continuous oxygenation: a randomised controlled trial. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2022; 66: 589-597. DOI: 10.1111/aas.14042.
 
17.
Tannheimer M, Reinke M, Lechner R. Comparison of laryngeal mask airway seal between anesthesiologists and individuals without previous airway experience. J Emerg Med 2024; 66: e470-e476. DOI: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2023.11.024.
 
eISSN:1731-2531
ISSN:1642-5758
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top