• Takuro Sanuki, Gosuke Nakatani, Shingo Sugioka, Erina Daigo, and Junichiro Kotani.
• Department of Anesthesiology, Osaka Dental University, Osaka, Japan. odu9847@yahoo.co.jp
• J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2011 Jul 1;69(7):e269-72.

PurposeThe present study compared the Ambu AuraFlex and the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) Flexible with regard to time required for and success rates of insertion on a manikin by dental students who had never used an LMA. In addition, participants' views on ease of insertion of each device were surveyed.Materials And MethodsSubjects consisted of 30 dental students who inserted each airway device in a manikin. The time required for and success rates of insertion were measured. Subjects were then asked to rate the ease of insertion of each device using the 100-mm visual analog scale (from 0 mm = extremely easy to 100 mm = extremely difficult).ResultsInsertion time was shorter with the Ambu AuraFlex (26.6 ± 7.1 seconds) than with the LMA Flexible (30.3 ± 6.8 seconds; P = .045). The rate of successful insertion using the Ambu AuraFlex (28 of 30 attempts, 93.3%) was greater than that with the LMA Flexible (23 of 30 attempts, 76.7%), although the difference was not statistically significant (P = .145). Ambu AuraFlex insertion was considered less difficult (median, 41 mm; 10th to 90th percentiles, 18 to 78 mm) than LMA Flexible insertion (60 mm; 42 to 82 mm; P = .004), as rated using the 100-mm visual analog scale.ConclusionsThe Ambu AuraFlex appears to be useful for inexperienced users because it enables quicker and easier insertion than the LMA Flexible.Copyright © 2011 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

14 keywords...

hide…