{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.043801652892561986, 'fraction_numerical': 0.028925619834710745, 'mean_word_length': 5.024875621890548, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Randomised crossover comparison of the Ambu® AuraOnceTM Laryngeal Mask with the LMA ClassicTM laryngeal mask airway in paralysed anaesthetised patients *

We compared the performance of the Ambu® AuraOnceTM Laryngeal Mask with that of the LMA ClassicTM laryngeal mask airway during controlled anaesthesia. Forty patients requiring intermittent positive pressure ventilation were studied using a randomised crossover design. The mean (SD) oropharyngeal leak pressure for the Ambu device (19 (7.5) cmH2O) was significantly greater than for the LMA Classic (15 (5.2) cmH2O; p = 0.004), and the number of attempts for successful insertions was significantly less (39 (50%) vs 45 (56%), respectively; p = 0.02). There was one failure to obtain a patent airway with the Ambu Laryngeal Mask and none with the LMA Classic. Insertion of the Ambu Laryngeal Mask required more manipulations to achieve a patent airway than did the LMA Classic (6 (15%) vs 1 (2.5%), respectively; p = 0.045), but the time taken for insertion was similar between the two groups. The incidence of trauma, grade of fibreoptic view, peak airway pressure and quality of ventilation during maintenance of anaesthesia were similar in both groups.