Comparison of two airway devices to see which is better to give anaesthesia in laparoscopic surgeries

Comparison of LMA ProSeal and LMA ProtectorTM as airway device in laparoscopic surgeries - a randomized controlled trial - nil

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Phase 4

Study type

Interventional

Source

CTRI

Registry ID

CTRI/2024/02/063288

Enrollment

140

Registered

2024-02-29

Start date

Unknown

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2024-03-04

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Health Condition 1: K00-K95- Diseases of the digestive system

Interventions

Intervention1: LMA protector: LMA protector as airway device in laparoscopic surgeries lma protector is a new LMA airway device that provides better seal pressures and better protection against regur

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: ASA class 1 and 2 Patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries Duration of surgery less than 4 h Expected blood loss less than 300 ml.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Patients who deny consent Anticipated difficult airway Increased risk of aspiration (Full stomach , hiatus hernia , gastroesophageal reflux disease)

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
primary outcome -oropharyngeal leak pressure secondary outcome- Time to insertion of the LMA Postoperative sore throat Fiberoptic score for correct placement Ease of insertion Adverse airway complications peak airway pressures Patient satisfaction score Operator satisfaction score Cost effective analysis of the two devicesTimepoint: primary outcome -oropharyngeal leak pressure measured in both groups after insertion of LMA Time to insertion of the LMA will be time from picking up LMA till first visualisation of EtC02 graph Postoperative sore throat - assessed immediately postoperatively and on POD1 Fiberoptic score for correct placement - done immediately after placement of the LMA	—

Measure

Time frame

primary outcome -oropharyngeal leak pressure secondary outcome- Time to insertion of the LMA Postoperative sore throat Fiberoptic score for correct placement Ease of insertion Adverse airway complications peak airway pressures Patient satisfaction score Operator satisfaction score Cost effective analysis of the two devicesTimepoint: primary outcome -oropharyngeal leak pressure measured in both groups after insertion of LMA Time to insertion of the LMA will be time from picking up LMA till first visualisation of EtC02 graph Postoperative sore throat - assessed immediately postoperatively and on POD1 Fiberoptic score for correct placement - done immediately after placement of the LMA

—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
secondary outcome- Time to insertion of the LMA Postoperative sore throat Fiberoptic score for correct placement Ease of insertion Adverse airway complications peak airway pressures Patient satisfaction score Operator satisfaction score Cost effective analysis of the two devicesTimepoint: time of insertion will be time from picking up LMA to first appearance of etco2 graph post op sore throat: measures immediately post op, 4. hrs post op and on post day 1	—

Measure

Time frame

secondary outcome- Time to insertion of the LMA Postoperative sore throat Fiberoptic score for correct placement Ease of insertion Adverse airway complications peak airway pressures Patient satisfaction score Operator satisfaction score Cost effective analysis of the two devicesTimepoint: time of insertion will be time from picking up LMA to first appearance of etco2 graph post op sore throat: measures immediately post op, 4. hrs post op and on post day 1

—

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactDr Bikash Ray

All india institute of medical sciences, new delhi

bikashray.aiims@gmail.com9899323110

Outcome results

None listed

Source: CTRI (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026