ClinicalTrials.gg
Not yet recruitingNCT07868848CUFFSTRESSUpdated Oct 9, 2026

Effect of Laryngeal Mask Cuff Shape on Pharyngeal Stress

An interventional study of SaCoVLM video laryngeal mask and LMA Supreme in Anesthesia, General, Airway Management and Postoperative Sore Throat, sponsored by Masarykova Nemocnice v Usti nad Labem, Krajska Zdravotni a.s.. Not yet recruiting at 2 sites in Czechia. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 80 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-10-09.

Sponsored by Masarykova Nemocnice v Usti nad Labem, Krajska Zdravotni a.s. · Not applicable, Interventional, and Supportive care

Updated Oct 9, 2026Newly registeredGo to Updates ↓
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
162
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 80 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Laryngeal masks are widely used supraglottic airway devices, but their cuffs differ considerably in shape and design. The cuff exerts pressure on the pharyngeal structures, which may provoke a physiological stress response and contribute to postoperative pharyngeal complaints. This prospective, randomized, two-centre trial compares three commercially available laryngeal masks with different cuff designs (SaCoVLM, LMA Supreme and Ambu AuraGain) in 162 adult patients undergoing elective surgery under general anaesthesia. Anaesthesia induction is standardized and guided by State Entropy, and cuff pressure is standardized to 40-50 cmH2O in all groups. The primary outcome is the change in mean arterial pressure after laryngeal mask insertion. Secondary outcomes include heart rate, nociception and depth-of-anaesthesia indices (Surgical Pleth Index, Response Entropy - State Entropy difference), insertion characteristics, oropharyngeal leak pressure and postoperative pharyngolaryngeal complaints up to 24 hours. The hypothesis is that cuff shape modifies the stress exerted on the pharynx and thereby influences the patient's stress response.

Read the detailed description

Design: prospective, randomized, controlled, parallel-group (1:1:1), two-centre trial (Masaryk Hospital Usti nad Labem and Decin Hospital, Krajska zdravotni, a.s., Czech Republic). Allocation is based on a computer-generated randomization sequence.

Participants: 162 adult patients (ASA physical status I-II) scheduled for elective surgery under general anaesthesia with a laryngeal mask airway, randomized to SaCoVLM, LMA Supreme or Ambu AuraGain (54 patients per group).

Blinding: patients (anaesthetized during device insertion) and outcome assessors in the post-anaesthesia care unit and at the 24-hour follow-up are blinded to group allocation. The anaesthesiologist inserting the device cannot be blinded because the devices are visibly different.

Investigators: all devices are inserted by board-certified anaesthesiologists with at least 5 years of practice and more than 4,000 documented general anaesthetics.

Anaesthesia protocol: standardized induction with sufentanil 0.3 ug/kg ideal body weight and propofol up to 3 mg/kg titrated to a State Entropy of 40-60. Depth of anaesthesia is maintained at a State Entropy of 40-60. No neuromuscular blocking agents are administered before or during the haemodynamic measurement period; they may be used later during surgery if required. Device size is selected according to the manufacturer's recommendations. After insertion, cuff pressure is measured with a manometer and adjusted to 40-50 cmH2O, below the manufacturers' maximum recommended pressure of 60 cmH2O.

Measurements: mean arterial pressure, heart rate, Surgical Pleth Index (SPI), State Entropy (SE) and Response Entropy (RE) are recorded before laryngeal mask insertion (baseline, at SE 40-60), immediately after insertion, and 5 and 10 minutes after insertion. The number of insertion attempts, need for airway manipulation and oropharyngeal leak pressure are recorded. After device removal, sore throat (VAS), hoarseness, blood staining of the device, coughing and postoperative nausea and vomiting are assessed until discharge from the post-anaesthesia care unit and at 24 hours.

Sample size: a between-group difference of 10% of baseline mean arterial pressure (MAP; approximately 8.2 mmHg at a baseline of 82 mmHg) was considered clinically relevant. The standard deviation of MAP after laryngeal mask insertion was estimated at 12 mmHg, derived from the systolic and diastolic blood pressures reported 5 minutes after LMA Supreme insertion (Iran Red Crescent Med J, doi:10.5812/ircmj.28615) and consistent with the MAP variability reported by Montazari et al. (Acta Med Iran 2004;42:437-440). With a two-sided alpha of 0.0167 (Bonferroni correction for three pairwise comparisons) and 80% power, 47 patients per group are required; allowing for a 10% drop-out rate, 54 patients per group (162 in total) will be enrolled.

02

Conditions studied

  • Anesthesia, General
  • Airway Management
  • Postoperative Sore Throat

Keywords

  • laryngeal mask airway
  • supraglottic airway device
  • cuff design
  • haemodynamic response
  • pharyngeal morbidity
  • SaCoVLM
  • LMA Supreme
  • Ambu AuraGain
03

In context

Lead sponsor

Masarykova Nemocnice v Usti nad Labem, Krajska Zdravotni a.s. is the lead sponsor of 21 studies on the registry; 14 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 80 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Age 18-80 years
  • I-II
  • Scheduled for elective surgery under general anaesthesia with a laryngeal mask airway indicated
  • No history or predictors of difficult airway
  • Signed

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Refusal to sign
  • III or higher
  • Emergency surgery
  • Laparoscopic surgery
  • Surgery in the prone position
  • Head and neck surgery
  • Increased risk of pulmonary aspiration (e.g. gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, > 35 kg/m2)
  • Pre-existing sore throat, hoarseness or upper respiratory tract infection within the preceding 2 weeks
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(3)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

ASA physical status

The anaesthetists’ scale of health before surgery: I is healthy, II has a mild illness that is under control, III a severe one, IV a severe illness that is a constant threat to life. V and VI are used for the critically ill and for organ donors.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

BMI (body mass index)

Weight in kilograms divided by height in metres squared. Example: 70 kg and 1.75 m gives 70 ÷ (1.75 × 1.75) ≈ 22.9.

What counts as overweight or obesity differs between countries (some use lower cut-offs), so go by the range the study states.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Supportive care
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Double (Participant, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
162 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    SaCoVLM

    Patients in whom the airway is secured with the SaCoVLM video laryngeal mask; cuff pressure adjusted to 40-50 cmH2O (n = 54).

    Device: SaCoVLM video laryngeal mask

  • Active comparator
    LMA Supreme

    Patients in whom the airway is secured with the LMA Supreme; cuff pressure adjusted to 40-50 cmH2O (n = 54).

    Device: LMA Supreme

  • Active comparator
    Ambu AuraGain

    Patients in whom the airway is secured with the Ambu AuraGain; cuff pressure adjusted to 40-50 cmH2O (n = 54).

    Device: Ambu AuraGain

Interventions

  • DeviceSaCoVLM video laryngeal mask

    Airway secured with the SaCoVLM video laryngeal mask (second-generation supraglottic airway device with integrated video channel), inserted after induction of general anaesthesia according to the manufacturer's instructions.

  • DeviceLMA Supreme

    Airway secured with the LMA Supreme (second-generation supraglottic airway device), inserted after induction of general anaesthesia according to the manufacturer's instructions.

  • DeviceAmbu AuraGain

    Airway secured with the Ambu AuraGain (second-generation supraglottic airway device), inserted after induction of general anaesthesia according to the manufacturer's instructions.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Maximum Percentage Change in Mean Arterial Pressure From Baseline

    Haemodynamic stress response to laryngeal mask insertion: maximum percentage change in mean arterial pressure (MAP) from the pre-insertion baseline value (measured under standardized anaesthesia at State Entropy 40-60) across the post-insertion measurement points. A between-group difference of 10% of baseline MAP is considered clinically relevant.

    Time frame: Baseline (before laryngeal mask insertion), immediately after insertion, and 5 and 10 minutes after insertion

Secondary outcomes

  1. Postoperative Sore Throat Intensity

    Intensity of sore throat assessed by the patient on a visual analogue scale (VAS, 0-100 mm; 0 = no pain, 100 = worst imaginable pain).

    Time frame: At discharge from the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) and 24 hours after laryngeal mask removal

  2. Incidence of Postoperative Sore Throat

    Presence of sore throat reported by the patient (yes/no).

    Time frame: At discharge from the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) and 24 hours after laryngeal mask removal

  3. Change in Heart Rate From Baseline

    Heart rate (beats/min) as a marker of the haemodynamic stress response to laryngeal mask insertion; change from the pre-insertion baseline value.

    Time frame: Baseline (before laryngeal mask insertion), immediately after insertion, and 5 and 10 minutes after insertion

  4. Incidence of Hoarseness

    Presence of hoarseness (yes/no).

    Time frame: At discharge from the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) and 24 hours after laryngeal mask removal

  5. Blood Staining on the Laryngeal Mask

    Presence of visible blood on the laryngeal mask at removal (yes/no).

    Time frame: At laryngeal mask removal up to 10 minutes from the removal

  6. Coughing at Laryngeal Mask Removal

    Coughing assessed with a coughing score (0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe).

    Time frame: At laryngeal mask removal up to 10 minutes from the removal

  7. Incidence of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV)

    Presence of postoperative nausea and/or vomiting (yes/no).

    Time frame: At discharge from the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) and 24 hours after laryngeal mask removal

  8. Change in Surgical Pleth Index (SPI) From Baseline

    Surgical Pleth Index (0-100) as an index of the nociceptive response to laryngeal mask insertion; change from the pre-insertion baseline value.

    Time frame: Baseline (before laryngeal mask insertion), immediately after insertion, and 5 and 10 minutes after insertion

  9. Change in the Response Entropy - State Entropy Difference From Baseline

    Difference between Response Entropy (RE) and State Entropy (SE) as an index of frontal EMG activation in response to laryngeal mask insertion; change from the pre-insertion baseline value.

    Time frame: Baseline (before laryngeal mask insertion), immediately after insertion, and 5 and 10 minutes after insertion

  10. Number of Insertion Attempts

    Number of attempts needed for successful laryngeal mask insertion.

    Time frame: During laryngeal mask insertion

  11. Need for Airway Manipulation

    Need for any additional airway manoeuvre (e.g. jaw thrust, head/neck repositioning, device repositioning or change of size) to achieve adequate ventilation (yes/no).

    Time frame: From laryngeal mask insertion until 10 minutes after insertion

  12. Oropharyngeal Leak Pressure

    Oropharyngeal leak pressure (cmH2O) measured after laryngeal mask insertion with cuff pressure adjusted to 40-50 cmH2O.

    Time frame: After laryngeal mask insertion and cuff pressure adjustment

07

Study locations

2 sites
  • Nemocnice Decin, Krajska Zdravotni a.s.
    Děčín, Ústí nad Labem Region 405 99, Czechia
  • Masarykova Nemocnice v Usti nad Labem, Krajska Zdravotni a.s.
    Ústí nad Labem, Ústí nad Labem Region 401 13, Czechia
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Jarineshin H, Kashani S, Vatankhah M, Abdulahzade Baghaee A, Sattari S, Fekrat F. Better Hemodynamic Profile of Laryngeal Mask Airway Insertion Compared to Laryngoscopy and Tracheal Intubation. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2015 Aug 12;17(8):e28615. doi: 10.5812/ircmj.28615. eCollection 2015 Aug. PubMed 26430529 ↗
  • Montazari K, Naghibi Kh, Hashemi SJ. Comparison of hemodynamic changes after insertion of laryngeal mask airway, facemask and endotracheal intubation. Acta Med Iran. 2004;42(6):437-440.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Undecided

09

Updates

1 registry update since Sep 25, 2026
Registered
First appeared on the registry. No changes since
Oct 9, 2026
Show all 1 update
  1. Oct 9, 2026
    First appeared on the registry

From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07868848
Lead sponsor
Masarykova Nemocnice v Usti nad Labem, Krajska Zdravotni a.s.
Collaborators
Jan Evangelista Purkyne University in Usti nad Labem, Faculty of Health Studies
Responsible party
Michal Kalina (Principal Investigator, Masarykova Nemocnice v Usti nad Labem, Krajska Zdravotni a.s.) — Principal investigator
First posted
Oct 9, 2026
Start date
Oct 1, 2026 (estimated)
Primary completion
Jan 31, 2028 (estimated)
Completion
Jan 31, 2028 (estimated)
Last update
Oct 9, 2026

Study contacts

Michal Kalina, MD, Ph.D., MBA
Contact
michal.kalina@kzcr.eu
+420773628756
Michal Kalina, MD, Ph.D., MBA
principal investigator · Masarykova Nemocnice v Usti nad Labem, Krajska Zdravotni a.s.

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Oct 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion