Pediatric supraglottic airway devices in clinical practice: A prospective observational study

Background Supraglottic airway devices (SGA) are commonly used in pediatric anesthesia and serve as primary or back-up devices for difficult airway management. Most SGA are marketed without proper clinical evaluation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of the pediatric LMA Supreme™, Air-Q® and Ambu® Aura-i™. Methods This prospective observational study was performed at Bern University Hospital, Switzerland. With ethics committee approval and a waiver for written informed consent 240 children undergoing elective surgery with an ASA class I-III and a weight of 5-30 kg were included. Three different pediatric supraglottic airway devices were assessed: The LMA Supreme™, Air-Q® and Ambu® Aura-i™. Primary outcome parameter was airway leak pressure. Secondary outcome parameters included first attempt and overall success rate, insertion time, fiberoptic view through the SGA, and adverse events. The primary hypothesis was that the mean airway leak pressure of each tested SGA was 20 $ cmH_{2} $O ± 10%. Results None of the SGA showed a mean airway leak pressure of 20 $ cmH_{2} $O ± 10%, but mean airway leak pressures differed significantly between devices [LMA Supreme™ 18.0 (3.4) $ cmH_{2} $O, Air-Q® 15.9 (3.2) $ cmH_{2} $O, Ambu® Aura-i™ 17.3 (3.7) $ cmH_{2} $O, p < 0.001]. First attempt success rates (LMA Supreme™ 100%, Air-Q® 90%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 91%, p = 0.02) and overall success rates (LMA Supreme™ 100%, Air-Q® 91%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 95%, p = 0.02) also differed significantly. Insertion times ranged from 20 (7) seconds (Air-Q®) to 24 (6) seconds (LMA Supreme™, <p = 0.005). Insertion was rated easiest with the LMA Supreme™ (very easy in 97% vs. Air-Q® 70%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 72%, p < 0.001). Fiberoptic view was similar between the SGA. Adverse events were rare. Conclusions Airway leak pressures ranged from 16 to 18 $ cmH_{2} $O, enabling positive pressure ventilation with all successful SGA. The highest success rates were achieved by the LMA Supreme™, which was also rated easiest to insert. Trials Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01625858. Registered 31 May 2012. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Kleine-Brueggeney, Maren [verfasserIn] Gottfried, Anne Nabecker, Sabine Greif, Robert Book, Malte Theiler, Lorenz

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2017

Schlagwörter:	Airway management Laryngeal mask airway Supraglottic airway device Pediatric anesthesia General anesthesia

Anmerkung:	© The Author(s). 2017

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: BMC anesthesiology - [S.l.] : BioMed Central, 2001, 17(2017), 1 vom: 02. Sept.
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:17 ; year:2017 ; number:1 ; day:02 ; month:09

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s12871-017-0403-6

Katalog-ID:	SPR027323633

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	SPR027323633
003	DE-627
005	20230519074525.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	201007s2017 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s12871-017-0403-6 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)SPR027323633
035			\|a (SPR)s12871-017-0403-6-e
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
100	1		\|a Kleine-Brueggeney, Maren \|e verfasserin \|0 (orcid)0000-0002-5595-8529 \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Pediatric supraglottic airway devices in clinical practice: A prospective observational study
264		1	\|c 2017
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
500			\|a © The Author(s). 2017
520			\|a Background Supraglottic airway devices (SGA) are commonly used in pediatric anesthesia and serve as primary or back-up devices for difficult airway management. Most SGA are marketed without proper clinical evaluation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of the pediatric LMA Supreme™, Air-Q® and Ambu® Aura-i™. Methods This prospective observational study was performed at Bern University Hospital, Switzerland. With ethics committee approval and a waiver for written informed consent 240 children undergoing elective surgery with an ASA class I-III and a weight of 5-30 kg were included. Three different pediatric supraglottic airway devices were assessed: The LMA Supreme™, Air-Q® and Ambu® Aura-i™. Primary outcome parameter was airway leak pressure. Secondary outcome parameters included first attempt and overall success rate, insertion time, fiberoptic view through the SGA, and adverse events. The primary hypothesis was that the mean airway leak pressure of each tested SGA was 20 $ cmH_{2} $O ± 10%. Results None of the SGA showed a mean airway leak pressure of 20 $ cmH_{2} $O ± 10%, but mean airway leak pressures differed significantly between devices [LMA Supreme™ 18.0 (3.4) $ cmH_{2} $O, Air-Q® 15.9 (3.2) $ cmH_{2} $O, Ambu® Aura-i™ 17.3 (3.7) $ cmH_{2} $O, p < 0.001]. First attempt success rates (LMA Supreme™ 100%, Air-Q® 90%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 91%, p = 0.02) and overall success rates (LMA Supreme™ 100%, Air-Q® 91%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 95%, p = 0.02) also differed significantly. Insertion times ranged from 20 (7) seconds (Air-Q®) to 24 (6) seconds (LMA Supreme™, <p = 0.005). Insertion was rated easiest with the LMA Supreme™ (very easy in 97% vs. Air-Q® 70%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 72%, p < 0.001). Fiberoptic view was similar between the SGA. Adverse events were rare. Conclusions Airway leak pressures ranged from 16 to 18 $ cmH_{2} $O, enabling positive pressure ventilation with all successful SGA. The highest success rates were achieved by the LMA Supreme™, which was also rated easiest to insert. Trials Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01625858. Registered 31 May 2012.
650		4	\|a Airway management \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Laryngeal mask airway \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Supraglottic airway device \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Pediatric anesthesia \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a General anesthesia \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
700	1		\|a Gottfried, Anne \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Nabecker, Sabine \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Greif, Robert \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Book, Malte \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Theiler, Lorenz \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t BMC anesthesiology \|d [S.l.] : BioMed Central, 2001 \|g 17(2017), 1 vom: 02. Sept. \|w (DE-627)355422115 \|w (DE-600)2091252-3 \|x 1471-2253 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:17 \|g year:2017 \|g number:1 \|g day:02 \|g month:09
856	4	0	\|u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-017-0403-6 \|z kostenfrei \|3 Volltext
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_SPRINGER
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2011
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 17 \|j 2017 \|e 1 \|b 02 \|c 09

Indexfelder

author_variant	m k b mkb a g ag s n sn r g rg m b mb l t lt
matchkey_str	article:14712253:2017----::eitispaltiaradvcsnlnclrciepopc
hierarchy_sort_str	2017
publishDate	2017
allfields	10.1186/s12871-017-0403-6 doi (DE-627)SPR027323633 (SPR)s12871-017-0403-6-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Kleine-Brueggeney, Maren verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-5595-8529 aut Pediatric supraglottic airway devices in clinical practice: A prospective observational study 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2017 Background Supraglottic airway devices (SGA) are commonly used in pediatric anesthesia and serve as primary or back-up devices for difficult airway management. Most SGA are marketed without proper clinical evaluation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of the pediatric LMA Supreme™, Air-Q® and Ambu® Aura-i™. Methods This prospective observational study was performed at Bern University Hospital, Switzerland. With ethics committee approval and a waiver for written informed consent 240 children undergoing elective surgery with an ASA class I-III and a weight of 5-30 kg were included. Three different pediatric supraglottic airway devices were assessed: The LMA Supreme™, Air-Q® and Ambu® Aura-i™. Primary outcome parameter was airway leak pressure. Secondary outcome parameters included first attempt and overall success rate, insertion time, fiberoptic view through the SGA, and adverse events. The primary hypothesis was that the mean airway leak pressure of each tested SGA was 20 $ cmH_{2} $O ± 10%. Results None of the SGA showed a mean airway leak pressure of 20 $ cmH_{2} $O ± 10%, but mean airway leak pressures differed significantly between devices [LMA Supreme™ 18.0 (3.4) $ cmH_{2} $O, Air-Q® 15.9 (3.2) $ cmH_{2} $O, Ambu® Aura-i™ 17.3 (3.7) $ cmH_{2} $O, p < 0.001]. First attempt success rates (LMA Supreme™ 100%, Air-Q® 90%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 91%, p = 0.02) and overall success rates (LMA Supreme™ 100%, Air-Q® 91%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 95%, p = 0.02) also differed significantly. Insertion times ranged from 20 (7) seconds (Air-Q®) to 24 (6) seconds (LMA Supreme™, <p = 0.005). Insertion was rated easiest with the LMA Supreme™ (very easy in 97% vs. Air-Q® 70%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 72%, p < 0.001). Fiberoptic view was similar between the SGA. Adverse events were rare. Conclusions Airway leak pressures ranged from 16 to 18 $ cmH_{2} $O, enabling positive pressure ventilation with all successful SGA. The highest success rates were achieved by the LMA Supreme™, which was also rated easiest to insert. Trials Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01625858. Registered 31 May 2012. Airway management (dpeaa)DE-He213 Laryngeal mask airway (dpeaa)DE-He213 Supraglottic airway device (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pediatric anesthesia (dpeaa)DE-He213 General anesthesia (dpeaa)DE-He213 Gottfried, Anne aut Nabecker, Sabine aut Greif, Robert aut Book, Malte aut Theiler, Lorenz aut Enthalten in BMC anesthesiology [S.l.] : BioMed Central, 2001 17(2017), 1 vom: 02. Sept. (DE-627)355422115 (DE-600)2091252-3 1471-2253 nnns volume:17 year:2017 number:1 day:02 month:09 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-017-0403-6 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2017 1 02 09
spelling	10.1186/s12871-017-0403-6 doi (DE-627)SPR027323633 (SPR)s12871-017-0403-6-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Kleine-Brueggeney, Maren verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-5595-8529 aut Pediatric supraglottic airway devices in clinical practice: A prospective observational study 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2017 Background Supraglottic airway devices (SGA) are commonly used in pediatric anesthesia and serve as primary or back-up devices for difficult airway management. Most SGA are marketed without proper clinical evaluation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of the pediatric LMA Supreme™, Air-Q® and Ambu® Aura-i™. Methods This prospective observational study was performed at Bern University Hospital, Switzerland. With ethics committee approval and a waiver for written informed consent 240 children undergoing elective surgery with an ASA class I-III and a weight of 5-30 kg were included. Three different pediatric supraglottic airway devices were assessed: The LMA Supreme™, Air-Q® and Ambu® Aura-i™. Primary outcome parameter was airway leak pressure. Secondary outcome parameters included first attempt and overall success rate, insertion time, fiberoptic view through the SGA, and adverse events. The primary hypothesis was that the mean airway leak pressure of each tested SGA was 20 $ cmH_{2} $O ± 10%. Results None of the SGA showed a mean airway leak pressure of 20 $ cmH_{2} $O ± 10%, but mean airway leak pressures differed significantly between devices [LMA Supreme™ 18.0 (3.4) $ cmH_{2} $O, Air-Q® 15.9 (3.2) $ cmH_{2} $O, Ambu® Aura-i™ 17.3 (3.7) $ cmH_{2} $O, p < 0.001]. First attempt success rates (LMA Supreme™ 100%, Air-Q® 90%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 91%, p = 0.02) and overall success rates (LMA Supreme™ 100%, Air-Q® 91%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 95%, p = 0.02) also differed significantly. Insertion times ranged from 20 (7) seconds (Air-Q®) to 24 (6) seconds (LMA Supreme™, <p = 0.005). Insertion was rated easiest with the LMA Supreme™ (very easy in 97% vs. Air-Q® 70%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 72%, p < 0.001). Fiberoptic view was similar between the SGA. Adverse events were rare. Conclusions Airway leak pressures ranged from 16 to 18 $ cmH_{2} $O, enabling positive pressure ventilation with all successful SGA. The highest success rates were achieved by the LMA Supreme™, which was also rated easiest to insert. Trials Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01625858. Registered 31 May 2012. Airway management (dpeaa)DE-He213 Laryngeal mask airway (dpeaa)DE-He213 Supraglottic airway device (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pediatric anesthesia (dpeaa)DE-He213 General anesthesia (dpeaa)DE-He213 Gottfried, Anne aut Nabecker, Sabine aut Greif, Robert aut Book, Malte aut Theiler, Lorenz aut Enthalten in BMC anesthesiology [S.l.] : BioMed Central, 2001 17(2017), 1 vom: 02. Sept. (DE-627)355422115 (DE-600)2091252-3 1471-2253 nnns volume:17 year:2017 number:1 day:02 month:09 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-017-0403-6 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2017 1 02 09
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s12871-017-0403-6 doi (DE-627)SPR027323633 (SPR)s12871-017-0403-6-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Kleine-Brueggeney, Maren verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-5595-8529 aut Pediatric supraglottic airway devices in clinical practice: A prospective observational study 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2017 Background Supraglottic airway devices (SGA) are commonly used in pediatric anesthesia and serve as primary or back-up devices for difficult airway management. Most SGA are marketed without proper clinical evaluation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of the pediatric LMA Supreme™, Air-Q® and Ambu® Aura-i™. Methods This prospective observational study was performed at Bern University Hospital, Switzerland. With ethics committee approval and a waiver for written informed consent 240 children undergoing elective surgery with an ASA class I-III and a weight of 5-30 kg were included. Three different pediatric supraglottic airway devices were assessed: The LMA Supreme™, Air-Q® and Ambu® Aura-i™. Primary outcome parameter was airway leak pressure. Secondary outcome parameters included first attempt and overall success rate, insertion time, fiberoptic view through the SGA, and adverse events. The primary hypothesis was that the mean airway leak pressure of each tested SGA was 20 $ cmH_{2} $O ± 10%. Results None of the SGA showed a mean airway leak pressure of 20 $ cmH_{2} $O ± 10%, but mean airway leak pressures differed significantly between devices [LMA Supreme™ 18.0 (3.4) $ cmH_{2} $O, Air-Q® 15.9 (3.2) $ cmH_{2} $O, Ambu® Aura-i™ 17.3 (3.7) $ cmH_{2} $O, p < 0.001]. First attempt success rates (LMA Supreme™ 100%, Air-Q® 90%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 91%, p = 0.02) and overall success rates (LMA Supreme™ 100%, Air-Q® 91%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 95%, p = 0.02) also differed significantly. Insertion times ranged from 20 (7) seconds (Air-Q®) to 24 (6) seconds (LMA Supreme™, <p = 0.005). Insertion was rated easiest with the LMA Supreme™ (very easy in 97% vs. Air-Q® 70%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 72%, p < 0.001). Fiberoptic view was similar between the SGA. Adverse events were rare. Conclusions Airway leak pressures ranged from 16 to 18 $ cmH_{2} $O, enabling positive pressure ventilation with all successful SGA. The highest success rates were achieved by the LMA Supreme™, which was also rated easiest to insert. Trials Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01625858. Registered 31 May 2012. Airway management (dpeaa)DE-He213 Laryngeal mask airway (dpeaa)DE-He213 Supraglottic airway device (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pediatric anesthesia (dpeaa)DE-He213 General anesthesia (dpeaa)DE-He213 Gottfried, Anne aut Nabecker, Sabine aut Greif, Robert aut Book, Malte aut Theiler, Lorenz aut Enthalten in BMC anesthesiology [S.l.] : BioMed Central, 2001 17(2017), 1 vom: 02. Sept. (DE-627)355422115 (DE-600)2091252-3 1471-2253 nnns volume:17 year:2017 number:1 day:02 month:09 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-017-0403-6 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2017 1 02 09
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s12871-017-0403-6 doi (DE-627)SPR027323633 (SPR)s12871-017-0403-6-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Kleine-Brueggeney, Maren verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-5595-8529 aut Pediatric supraglottic airway devices in clinical practice: A prospective observational study 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2017 Background Supraglottic airway devices (SGA) are commonly used in pediatric anesthesia and serve as primary or back-up devices for difficult airway management. Most SGA are marketed without proper clinical evaluation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of the pediatric LMA Supreme™, Air-Q® and Ambu® Aura-i™. Methods This prospective observational study was performed at Bern University Hospital, Switzerland. With ethics committee approval and a waiver for written informed consent 240 children undergoing elective surgery with an ASA class I-III and a weight of 5-30 kg were included. Three different pediatric supraglottic airway devices were assessed: The LMA Supreme™, Air-Q® and Ambu® Aura-i™. Primary outcome parameter was airway leak pressure. Secondary outcome parameters included first attempt and overall success rate, insertion time, fiberoptic view through the SGA, and adverse events. The primary hypothesis was that the mean airway leak pressure of each tested SGA was 20 $ cmH_{2} $O ± 10%. Results None of the SGA showed a mean airway leak pressure of 20 $ cmH_{2} $O ± 10%, but mean airway leak pressures differed significantly between devices [LMA Supreme™ 18.0 (3.4) $ cmH_{2} $O, Air-Q® 15.9 (3.2) $ cmH_{2} $O, Ambu® Aura-i™ 17.3 (3.7) $ cmH_{2} $O, p < 0.001]. First attempt success rates (LMA Supreme™ 100%, Air-Q® 90%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 91%, p = 0.02) and overall success rates (LMA Supreme™ 100%, Air-Q® 91%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 95%, p = 0.02) also differed significantly. Insertion times ranged from 20 (7) seconds (Air-Q®) to 24 (6) seconds (LMA Supreme™, <p = 0.005). Insertion was rated easiest with the LMA Supreme™ (very easy in 97% vs. Air-Q® 70%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 72%, p < 0.001). Fiberoptic view was similar between the SGA. Adverse events were rare. Conclusions Airway leak pressures ranged from 16 to 18 $ cmH_{2} $O, enabling positive pressure ventilation with all successful SGA. The highest success rates were achieved by the LMA Supreme™, which was also rated easiest to insert. Trials Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01625858. Registered 31 May 2012. Airway management (dpeaa)DE-He213 Laryngeal mask airway (dpeaa)DE-He213 Supraglottic airway device (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pediatric anesthesia (dpeaa)DE-He213 General anesthesia (dpeaa)DE-He213 Gottfried, Anne aut Nabecker, Sabine aut Greif, Robert aut Book, Malte aut Theiler, Lorenz aut Enthalten in BMC anesthesiology [S.l.] : BioMed Central, 2001 17(2017), 1 vom: 02. Sept. (DE-627)355422115 (DE-600)2091252-3 1471-2253 nnns volume:17 year:2017 number:1 day:02 month:09 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-017-0403-6 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2017 1 02 09
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s12871-017-0403-6 doi (DE-627)SPR027323633 (SPR)s12871-017-0403-6-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Kleine-Brueggeney, Maren verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-5595-8529 aut Pediatric supraglottic airway devices in clinical practice: A prospective observational study 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2017 Background Supraglottic airway devices (SGA) are commonly used in pediatric anesthesia and serve as primary or back-up devices for difficult airway management. Most SGA are marketed without proper clinical evaluation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of the pediatric LMA Supreme™, Air-Q® and Ambu® Aura-i™. Methods This prospective observational study was performed at Bern University Hospital, Switzerland. With ethics committee approval and a waiver for written informed consent 240 children undergoing elective surgery with an ASA class I-III and a weight of 5-30 kg were included. Three different pediatric supraglottic airway devices were assessed: The LMA Supreme™, Air-Q® and Ambu® Aura-i™. Primary outcome parameter was airway leak pressure. Secondary outcome parameters included first attempt and overall success rate, insertion time, fiberoptic view through the SGA, and adverse events. The primary hypothesis was that the mean airway leak pressure of each tested SGA was 20 $ cmH_{2} $O ± 10%. Results None of the SGA showed a mean airway leak pressure of 20 $ cmH_{2} $O ± 10%, but mean airway leak pressures differed significantly between devices [LMA Supreme™ 18.0 (3.4) $ cmH_{2} $O, Air-Q® 15.9 (3.2) $ cmH_{2} $O, Ambu® Aura-i™ 17.3 (3.7) $ cmH_{2} $O, p < 0.001]. First attempt success rates (LMA Supreme™ 100%, Air-Q® 90%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 91%, p = 0.02) and overall success rates (LMA Supreme™ 100%, Air-Q® 91%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 95%, p = 0.02) also differed significantly. Insertion times ranged from 20 (7) seconds (Air-Q®) to 24 (6) seconds (LMA Supreme™, <p = 0.005). Insertion was rated easiest with the LMA Supreme™ (very easy in 97% vs. Air-Q® 70%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 72%, p < 0.001). Fiberoptic view was similar between the SGA. Adverse events were rare. Conclusions Airway leak pressures ranged from 16 to 18 $ cmH_{2} $O, enabling positive pressure ventilation with all successful SGA. The highest success rates were achieved by the LMA Supreme™, which was also rated easiest to insert. Trials Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01625858. Registered 31 May 2012. Airway management (dpeaa)DE-He213 Laryngeal mask airway (dpeaa)DE-He213 Supraglottic airway device (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pediatric anesthesia (dpeaa)DE-He213 General anesthesia (dpeaa)DE-He213 Gottfried, Anne aut Nabecker, Sabine aut Greif, Robert aut Book, Malte aut Theiler, Lorenz aut Enthalten in BMC anesthesiology [S.l.] : BioMed Central, 2001 17(2017), 1 vom: 02. Sept. (DE-627)355422115 (DE-600)2091252-3 1471-2253 nnns volume:17 year:2017 number:1 day:02 month:09 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-017-0403-6 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2017 1 02 09
language	English
source	Enthalten in BMC anesthesiology 17(2017), 1 vom: 02. Sept. volume:17 year:2017 number:1 day:02 month:09
sourceStr	Enthalten in BMC anesthesiology 17(2017), 1 vom: 02. Sept. volume:17 year:2017 number:1 day:02 month:09
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Airway management Laryngeal mask airway Supraglottic airway device Pediatric anesthesia General anesthesia
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	BMC anesthesiology
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Kleine-Brueggeney, Maren @@aut@@ Gottfried, Anne @@aut@@ Nabecker, Sabine @@aut@@ Greif, Robert @@aut@@ Book, Malte @@aut@@ Theiler, Lorenz @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2017-09-02T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	355422115
id	SPR027323633
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR027323633</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519074525.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2017 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12871-017-0403-6</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR027323633</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12871-017-0403-6-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kleine-Brueggeney, Maren</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0002-5595-8529</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Pediatric supraglottic airway devices in clinical practice: A prospective observational study</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s). 2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Supraglottic airway devices (SGA) are commonly used in pediatric anesthesia and serve as primary or back-up devices for difficult airway management. Most SGA are marketed without proper clinical evaluation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of the pediatric LMA Supreme™, Air-Q® and Ambu® Aura-i™. Methods This prospective observational study was performed at Bern University Hospital, Switzerland. With ethics committee approval and a waiver for written informed consent 240 children undergoing elective surgery with an ASA class I-III and a weight of 5-30 kg were included. Three different pediatric supraglottic airway devices were assessed: The LMA Supreme™, Air-Q® and Ambu® Aura-i™. Primary outcome parameter was airway leak pressure. Secondary outcome parameters included first attempt and overall success rate, insertion time, fiberoptic view through the SGA, and adverse events. The primary hypothesis was that the mean airway leak pressure of each tested SGA was 20 $ cmH_{2} $O ± 10%. Results None of the SGA showed a mean airway leak pressure of 20 $ cmH_{2} $O ± 10%, but mean airway leak pressures differed significantly between devices [LMA Supreme™ 18.0 (3.4) $ cmH_{2} $O, Air-Q® 15.9 (3.2) $ cmH_{2} $O, Ambu® Aura-i™ 17.3 (3.7) $ cmH_{2} $O, p < 0.001]. First attempt success rates (LMA Supreme™ 100%, Air-Q® 90%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 91%, p = 0.02) and overall success rates (LMA Supreme™ 100%, Air-Q® 91%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 95%, p = 0.02) also differed significantly. Insertion times ranged from 20 (7) seconds (Air-Q®) to 24 (6) seconds (LMA Supreme™, <p = 0.005). Insertion was rated easiest with the LMA Supreme™ (very easy in 97% vs. Air-Q® 70%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 72%, p < 0.001). Fiberoptic view was similar between the SGA. Adverse events were rare. Conclusions Airway leak pressures ranged from 16 to 18 $ cmH_{2} $O, enabling positive pressure ventilation with all successful SGA. The highest success rates were achieved by the LMA Supreme™, which was also rated easiest to insert. Trials Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01625858. Registered 31 May 2012.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Airway management</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Laryngeal mask airway</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Supraglottic airway device</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Pediatric anesthesia</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">General anesthesia</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Gottfried, Anne</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nabecker, Sabine</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Greif, Robert</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Book, Malte</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Theiler, Lorenz</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC anesthesiology</subfield><subfield code="d">[S.l.] : BioMed Central, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">17(2017), 1 vom: 02. Sept.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)355422115</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2091252-3</subfield><subfield code="x">1471-2253</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:17</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:02</subfield><subfield code="g">month:09</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-017-0403-6</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">17</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">02</subfield><subfield code="c">09</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Kleine-Brueggeney, Maren
spellingShingle	Kleine-Brueggeney, Maren misc Airway management misc Laryngeal mask airway misc Supraglottic airway device misc Pediatric anesthesia misc General anesthesia Pediatric supraglottic airway devices in clinical practice: A prospective observational study
authorStr	Kleine-Brueggeney, Maren
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)355422115
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	springer
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	1471-2253
topic_title	Pediatric supraglottic airway devices in clinical practice: A prospective observational study Airway management (dpeaa)DE-He213 Laryngeal mask airway (dpeaa)DE-He213 Supraglottic airway device (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pediatric anesthesia (dpeaa)DE-He213 General anesthesia (dpeaa)DE-He213
topic	misc Airway management misc Laryngeal mask airway misc Supraglottic airway device misc Pediatric anesthesia misc General anesthesia
topic_unstemmed	misc Airway management misc Laryngeal mask airway misc Supraglottic airway device misc Pediatric anesthesia misc General anesthesia
topic_browse	misc Airway management misc Laryngeal mask airway misc Supraglottic airway device misc Pediatric anesthesia misc General anesthesia
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	BMC anesthesiology
hierarchy_parent_id	355422115
hierarchy_top_title	BMC anesthesiology
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)355422115 (DE-600)2091252-3
title	Pediatric supraglottic airway devices in clinical practice: A prospective observational study
ctrlnum	(DE-627)SPR027323633 (SPR)s12871-017-0403-6-e
title_full	Pediatric supraglottic airway devices in clinical practice: A prospective observational study
author_sort	Kleine-Brueggeney, Maren
journal	BMC anesthesiology
journalStr	BMC anesthesiology
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2017
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Kleine-Brueggeney, Maren Gottfried, Anne Nabecker, Sabine Greif, Robert Book, Malte Theiler, Lorenz
container_volume	17
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Kleine-Brueggeney, Maren
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s12871-017-0403-6
normlink	(ORCID)0000-0002-5595-8529
normlink_prefix_str_mv	(orcid)0000-0002-5595-8529
title_sort	pediatric supraglottic airway devices in clinical practice: a prospective observational study
title_auth	Pediatric supraglottic airway devices in clinical practice: A prospective observational study
abstract	Background Supraglottic airway devices (SGA) are commonly used in pediatric anesthesia and serve as primary or back-up devices for difficult airway management. Most SGA are marketed without proper clinical evaluation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of the pediatric LMA Supreme™, Air-Q® and Ambu® Aura-i™. Methods This prospective observational study was performed at Bern University Hospital, Switzerland. With ethics committee approval and a waiver for written informed consent 240 children undergoing elective surgery with an ASA class I-III and a weight of 5-30 kg were included. Three different pediatric supraglottic airway devices were assessed: The LMA Supreme™, Air-Q® and Ambu® Aura-i™. Primary outcome parameter was airway leak pressure. Secondary outcome parameters included first attempt and overall success rate, insertion time, fiberoptic view through the SGA, and adverse events. The primary hypothesis was that the mean airway leak pressure of each tested SGA was 20 $ cmH_{2} $O ± 10%. Results None of the SGA showed a mean airway leak pressure of 20 $ cmH_{2} $O ± 10%, but mean airway leak pressures differed significantly between devices [LMA Supreme™ 18.0 (3.4) $ cmH_{2} $O, Air-Q® 15.9 (3.2) $ cmH_{2} $O, Ambu® Aura-i™ 17.3 (3.7) $ cmH_{2} $O, p < 0.001]. First attempt success rates (LMA Supreme™ 100%, Air-Q® 90%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 91%, p = 0.02) and overall success rates (LMA Supreme™ 100%, Air-Q® 91%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 95%, p = 0.02) also differed significantly. Insertion times ranged from 20 (7) seconds (Air-Q®) to 24 (6) seconds (LMA Supreme™, <p = 0.005). Insertion was rated easiest with the LMA Supreme™ (very easy in 97% vs. Air-Q® 70%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 72%, p < 0.001). Fiberoptic view was similar between the SGA. Adverse events were rare. Conclusions Airway leak pressures ranged from 16 to 18 $ cmH_{2} $O, enabling positive pressure ventilation with all successful SGA. The highest success rates were achieved by the LMA Supreme™, which was also rated easiest to insert. Trials Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01625858. Registered 31 May 2012. © The Author(s). 2017
abstractGer	Background Supraglottic airway devices (SGA) are commonly used in pediatric anesthesia and serve as primary or back-up devices for difficult airway management. Most SGA are marketed without proper clinical evaluation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of the pediatric LMA Supreme™, Air-Q® and Ambu® Aura-i™. Methods This prospective observational study was performed at Bern University Hospital, Switzerland. With ethics committee approval and a waiver for written informed consent 240 children undergoing elective surgery with an ASA class I-III and a weight of 5-30 kg were included. Three different pediatric supraglottic airway devices were assessed: The LMA Supreme™, Air-Q® and Ambu® Aura-i™. Primary outcome parameter was airway leak pressure. Secondary outcome parameters included first attempt and overall success rate, insertion time, fiberoptic view through the SGA, and adverse events. The primary hypothesis was that the mean airway leak pressure of each tested SGA was 20 $ cmH_{2} $O ± 10%. Results None of the SGA showed a mean airway leak pressure of 20 $ cmH_{2} $O ± 10%, but mean airway leak pressures differed significantly between devices [LMA Supreme™ 18.0 (3.4) $ cmH_{2} $O, Air-Q® 15.9 (3.2) $ cmH_{2} $O, Ambu® Aura-i™ 17.3 (3.7) $ cmH_{2} $O, p < 0.001]. First attempt success rates (LMA Supreme™ 100%, Air-Q® 90%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 91%, p = 0.02) and overall success rates (LMA Supreme™ 100%, Air-Q® 91%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 95%, p = 0.02) also differed significantly. Insertion times ranged from 20 (7) seconds (Air-Q®) to 24 (6) seconds (LMA Supreme™, <p = 0.005). Insertion was rated easiest with the LMA Supreme™ (very easy in 97% vs. Air-Q® 70%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 72%, p < 0.001). Fiberoptic view was similar between the SGA. Adverse events were rare. Conclusions Airway leak pressures ranged from 16 to 18 $ cmH_{2} $O, enabling positive pressure ventilation with all successful SGA. The highest success rates were achieved by the LMA Supreme™, which was also rated easiest to insert. Trials Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01625858. Registered 31 May 2012. © The Author(s). 2017
abstract_unstemmed	Background Supraglottic airway devices (SGA) are commonly used in pediatric anesthesia and serve as primary or back-up devices for difficult airway management. Most SGA are marketed without proper clinical evaluation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of the pediatric LMA Supreme™, Air-Q® and Ambu® Aura-i™. Methods This prospective observational study was performed at Bern University Hospital, Switzerland. With ethics committee approval and a waiver for written informed consent 240 children undergoing elective surgery with an ASA class I-III and a weight of 5-30 kg were included. Three different pediatric supraglottic airway devices were assessed: The LMA Supreme™, Air-Q® and Ambu® Aura-i™. Primary outcome parameter was airway leak pressure. Secondary outcome parameters included first attempt and overall success rate, insertion time, fiberoptic view through the SGA, and adverse events. The primary hypothesis was that the mean airway leak pressure of each tested SGA was 20 $ cmH_{2} $O ± 10%. Results None of the SGA showed a mean airway leak pressure of 20 $ cmH_{2} $O ± 10%, but mean airway leak pressures differed significantly between devices [LMA Supreme™ 18.0 (3.4) $ cmH_{2} $O, Air-Q® 15.9 (3.2) $ cmH_{2} $O, Ambu® Aura-i™ 17.3 (3.7) $ cmH_{2} $O, p < 0.001]. First attempt success rates (LMA Supreme™ 100%, Air-Q® 90%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 91%, p = 0.02) and overall success rates (LMA Supreme™ 100%, Air-Q® 91%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 95%, p = 0.02) also differed significantly. Insertion times ranged from 20 (7) seconds (Air-Q®) to 24 (6) seconds (LMA Supreme™, <p = 0.005). Insertion was rated easiest with the LMA Supreme™ (very easy in 97% vs. Air-Q® 70%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 72%, p < 0.001). Fiberoptic view was similar between the SGA. Adverse events were rare. Conclusions Airway leak pressures ranged from 16 to 18 $ cmH_{2} $O, enabling positive pressure ventilation with all successful SGA. The highest success rates were achieved by the LMA Supreme™, which was also rated easiest to insert. Trials Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01625858. Registered 31 May 2012. © The Author(s). 2017
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	Pediatric supraglottic airway devices in clinical practice: A prospective observational study
url	https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-017-0403-6
remote_bool	true
author2	Gottfried, Anne Nabecker, Sabine Greif, Robert Book, Malte Theiler, Lorenz
author2Str	Gottfried, Anne Nabecker, Sabine Greif, Robert Book, Malte Theiler, Lorenz
ppnlink	355422115
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s12871-017-0403-6
up_date	2024-07-04T01:21:58.534Z
_version_	1803609564550004736
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR027323633</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519074525.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2017 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12871-017-0403-6</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR027323633</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12871-017-0403-6-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kleine-Brueggeney, Maren</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0002-5595-8529</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Pediatric supraglottic airway devices in clinical practice: A prospective observational study</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s). 2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Supraglottic airway devices (SGA) are commonly used in pediatric anesthesia and serve as primary or back-up devices for difficult airway management. Most SGA are marketed without proper clinical evaluation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of the pediatric LMA Supreme™, Air-Q® and Ambu® Aura-i™. Methods This prospective observational study was performed at Bern University Hospital, Switzerland. With ethics committee approval and a waiver for written informed consent 240 children undergoing elective surgery with an ASA class I-III and a weight of 5-30 kg were included. Three different pediatric supraglottic airway devices were assessed: The LMA Supreme™, Air-Q® and Ambu® Aura-i™. Primary outcome parameter was airway leak pressure. Secondary outcome parameters included first attempt and overall success rate, insertion time, fiberoptic view through the SGA, and adverse events. The primary hypothesis was that the mean airway leak pressure of each tested SGA was 20 $ cmH_{2} $O ± 10%. Results None of the SGA showed a mean airway leak pressure of 20 $ cmH_{2} $O ± 10%, but mean airway leak pressures differed significantly between devices [LMA Supreme™ 18.0 (3.4) $ cmH_{2} $O, Air-Q® 15.9 (3.2) $ cmH_{2} $O, Ambu® Aura-i™ 17.3 (3.7) $ cmH_{2} $O, p < 0.001]. First attempt success rates (LMA Supreme™ 100%, Air-Q® 90%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 91%, p = 0.02) and overall success rates (LMA Supreme™ 100%, Air-Q® 91%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 95%, p = 0.02) also differed significantly. Insertion times ranged from 20 (7) seconds (Air-Q®) to 24 (6) seconds (LMA Supreme™, <p = 0.005). Insertion was rated easiest with the LMA Supreme™ (very easy in 97% vs. Air-Q® 70%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 72%, p < 0.001). Fiberoptic view was similar between the SGA. Adverse events were rare. Conclusions Airway leak pressures ranged from 16 to 18 $ cmH_{2} $O, enabling positive pressure ventilation with all successful SGA. The highest success rates were achieved by the LMA Supreme™, which was also rated easiest to insert. Trials Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01625858. Registered 31 May 2012.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Airway management</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Laryngeal mask airway</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Supraglottic airway device</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Pediatric anesthesia</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">General anesthesia</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Gottfried, Anne</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nabecker, Sabine</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Greif, Robert</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Book, Malte</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Theiler, Lorenz</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC anesthesiology</subfield><subfield code="d">[S.l.] : BioMed Central, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">17(2017), 1 vom: 02. Sept.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)355422115</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2091252-3</subfield><subfield code="x">1471-2253</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:17</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:02</subfield><subfield code="g">month:09</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-017-0403-6</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">17</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">02</subfield><subfield code="c">09</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.400918

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Pediatric supraglottic airway devices in clinical practice: A prospective observational study

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?