The placement of four different supraglottic airway devices by medical students: a manikin study

Figures & data

Figure 1. Supraglottic airway devices.

Figure 2. Adult airway manikin.

Table 1. Comparison of ease of use and duration of application according to groups.

	cLMA	sLMA	pLMA	I-gel
Ease of Use	29.3 ± 19.1	27.61 ± 8.1	57.4 ± 27.2^&	21.2 ± 19.9*
Duration of application (sec)	15.6 ± 13	13.7 ± 9.7	21 ± 8.4^∞	10.3 ± 3.7^#

cLMA: Classic laryngeal mask airway; sLMA: Suprema laryngeal mask airway; pLMA: ProSeal laryngeal mask airway.

Kruskal-Wallis test.

POST-HOC of EASE OF USE.

*Compared I-gel with cLMA, sLMA, pLMA (respectively p < 0.005, <0.038, p < 0.001).

^&Compared pLMA with cLMA, sLMA (respectively p < 0.001, p < 0.001).

POST-HOC of DURATION OF APPLICATION.

^#Compared I-gel with cLMA, sLMA, pLMA (respectively p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001).

^∞Compared pLMA with cLMA, sLMA (respectively p < 0.001, p < 0.001).

Table 2. Comparison of success of application and use of maneuvers according to groups.

	cLMA n (%)	sLMA n (%)	pLMA n (%)	I-gel n (%)	p
Success	105 (94.6)	109 (98.2)	89* (80.2)	110 (99.1)	<0.001
Maneuvers	58^a (52)	40^b (36)	81^c (73)	47^a,b (42)	<0.001

cLMA: Classic laryngeal mask airway; sLMA: Suprema laryngeal mask airway; pLMA: ProSeal laryngeal mask airway.

Pearson Chi-square analysis.

*Comparation of pLMA with cLMA, sLMA, and I-gel.

^a–cThere is no difference between times with the same letter in a group.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, K.B., upon reasonable request.