Comparison of the efficacy of supraglottic airway devices in low-risk adult patients: a network meta-analysis and systematic review
Abstract Numerous supraglottic airway device (SADs) have been designed for adults; however, their relative efficacy, indicated by parameters such as adequacy of sealing, ease of application, and postinsertion complications, remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Nature Portfolio
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/52fd4b4fc37f4c3ca3d9607042fbe5fb |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Abstract Numerous supraglottic airway device (SADs) have been designed for adults; however, their relative efficacy, indicated by parameters such as adequacy of sealing, ease of application, and postinsertion complications, remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of various SADs. We searched electronic databases for randomized controlled trials comparing at least two types of SADs published before December 2019. The primary outcomes were oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP), risk of first-attempt insertion failure, and postoperative sore throat rate (POST). We included 108 studies (n = 10,645) comparing 17 types of SAD. The Proseal laryngeal mask airway (LMA), the I-gel supraglottic airway, the Supreme LMA, the Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway, the SoftSeal, the Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway, the Air-Q, the Laryngeal Tube, the Laryngeal Tube Suction II, the Laryngeal Tube Suction Disposable, AuraGain, and Protector had significantly higher OLP (mean difference ranging from 3.98 to 9.18 cmH2O) compared with that of a classic LMA (C-LMA). The Protector exhibited the highest OLP and was ranked first. All SADs had a similar likelihood of first-attempt insertion failure and POST compared with the C-LMA. Our findings indicate that the Protector may be the best SAD because it has the highest OLP. Systematic review registration PROSPERO: CRD42017065273. |
|---|