Observational studyBMC anesthesiology2021
LMA® protector™ in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries: a multicenter prospective observational study.
Observational study in BMC anesthesiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06527352 (Comparison of Risk of Gastroesophageal Reflux During General Anesthesia With Tulip vs GMA), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Comparison of Risk of Gastroesophageal Reflux During General Anesthesia With Tulip vs GMA(Glottis Mask Airway) Airway
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laryngeal mask airway versus endotracheal tube for preventing postoperative atelectasis after laparoscopic surgery: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Trial
- Comparison of LMA Protector vs. endotracheal tube in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: a randomised controlled trial.Anaesthesiology intensive therapy · 2022Trial
- Observational study on the application of different esketamine gargle doses for the prevention of postoperative sore throat after laryngeal mask airway insertion.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Gastric tube placement through the drainage channel of second-generation supraglottic airway devices: a systematic review with evidence mapping.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy under discontinuous spontaneous ventilating anesthesia by laryngeal mask: a retrospective non-inferiority cohort study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Comparison of incidence of sore throat with laryngeal mask airway Protector and laryngeal mask airway ProSeal: A randomised clinical trial.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2024Article
- Comparison of oropharyngeal leak pressure of LMA Protector and LMA ProSeal in anaesthetised paralysed patients - A randomised controlled trial.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2023Article
- Is Laryngeal Mask a Good Alternative in Children Undergoing Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair with Percutaneous Internal Ring Suturing Under and Over Two Years Old?Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation · 2023Article
- Second-generation supraglottic airway in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Laryngeal mask airway proseal versus laryngeal mask airway protector for laparoscopic surgery: A randomized comparative study.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
- Comparison of blind oro-tracheal intubation through LMA Blockbuster and LMA Protector - A prospective randomized study.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaryngeal masks airway (LMA) has been increasingly used in surgical patients. However, the use of LMA in laparoscopic surgeries remains controversial. The major concerns include the potential risk of esophageal regurgitation, aspiration, and difficulties to achieve effective ventilation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the LMA® Protector™ in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.
methodsPatients aged 18 to 70 years, scheduled for laparoscopic surgeries were included. The insertion time, successful insertion rate, and oropharyngeal leak pressure were measured. Airway complications and airway manipulations during the procedure were documented. Effective ventilation rate was calculated. Visible bloodstains and reflux content in the drainage channel were documented after the removal of LMA® Protector™.
resultsThree hundred patients were enrolled. The insertion of LMA® Protector™ failed in seven patients resulting with a successful insertion rate of 97.7%. During the maintenance of anesthesia, airway manipulation was required in 19 patients (19/293, 6.48%), in three of whom the LMA was replaced with endotracheal intubation resulting with an effective ventilation rate of 96.7% (290/300). The oropharyngeal leak pressure was 30.18 ± 5.88 cmH
conclusionsThe LMA® Protector™ was shown to be safe and effective in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries. Although minor complications that require no further treatment, no clinically diagnosed aspiration was noticed in our study. Gastric reflux was noticed in the drainage tube in five patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecology surgery. Further research is needed to verify whether LMA® Protector™ is suitable for procedures in Trendelenburg position or other situations that a high risk of gastroesophageal reflux exists.
trial registrationThe trial was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( ChiCTR1800018300 , date of registration: September 2018).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.