LMA® Protector™ versus traditional LMA to perform endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: a retrospective analysis.BACKGROUND
 The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of laryngeal mask airway (LMA)® Protector™ by comparison with traditional LMA for performing endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA).


 Patients were retrospectively divided into two groups based on whether a traditional LMA (traditional LMA group) or LMA Protector was used.  LMA traditional group and LMA Protector group counted 70 and 73 patients, respectively.  LMA traditional group versus LMA Protector group showed no significant difference on time of LMA insertion (120±25 vs. 118±39 s; P=0.49), reposition rates (18% vs. 16%; P=0.78); systolic pressure (140±55 vs. 118±37 mmHg; P=0.59); diastolic pressure (82±15 vs. 90±26 mmHg; P=0.39); heart rate (82±9.9 vs. 83±20 bpm; P=0.49); SpO2 values (93±21% vs. 92±14%; P=0.63); diagnostic accuracy (91.3% vs. 92%; P=0.95), and patients' complications as nausea (4% vs. 3%; P=0.61); vomiting (3% vs. 1%, P=0.96); gastric aspiration (7% vs. 1%; P=0.08); and sore throat (7% vs. 3%; P=0.22).  Conversely, LMA traditional group versus LMA Protector group presented a longer procedural time (47±23 vs. 38±17 s; P=0.02), higher number of passage to biopsy target lesion (4±0.5 vs. 3.1±0.6; P=0.01); higher rate of balloon ultrasound rupture (11% vs. 1%; P=0.01).


 EBUS-TBNA conducted with LMA Protector is a useful strategy that reduced the procedural time and in theory ensured the comfort of patients. 
LMA
LMA® Protector™ versus traditional LMA to perform endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: a retrospective analysis.BACKGROUND
 The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of laryngeal mask airway (LMA)® Protector™ by comparison with traditional LMA for performing endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA).


 Patients were retrospectively divided into two groups based on whether a traditional LMA (traditional LMA group) or LMA Protector was used.  LMA traditional group and LMA Protector group counted 70 and 73 patients, respectively.  LMA traditional group versus LMA Protector group showed no significant difference on time of LMA insertion (120±25 vs. 118±39 s; P=0.49), reposition rates (18% vs. 16%; P=0.78); systolic pressure (140±55 vs. 118±37 mmHg; P=0.59); diastolic pressure (82±15 vs. 90±26 mmHg; P=0.39); heart rate (82±9.9 vs. 83±20 bpm; P=0.49); SpO2 values (93±21% vs. 92±14%; P=0.63); diagnostic accuracy (91.3% vs. 92%; P=0.95), and patients' complications as nausea (4% vs. 3%; P=0.61); vomiting (3% vs. 1%, P=0.96); gastric aspiration (7% vs. 1%; P=0.08); and sore throat (7% vs. 3%; P=0.22).  Conversely, LMA traditional group versus LMA Protector group presented a longer procedural time (47±23 vs. 38±17 s; P=0.02), higher number of passage to biopsy target lesion (4±0.5 vs. 3.1±0.6; P=0.01); higher rate of balloon ultrasound rupture (11% vs. 1%; P=0.01).


 EBUS-TBNA conducted with LMA Protector is a useful strategy that reduced the procedural time and in theory ensured the comfort of patients. 
LMA
LMA® Protector™ versus traditional LMA to perform endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: a retrospective analysis.BACKGROUND
 The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of laryngeal mask airway (LMA)® Protector™ by comparison with traditional LMA for performing endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA).


 Patients were retrospectively divided into two groups based on whether a traditional LMA (traditional LMA group) or LMA Protector was used.  LMA traditional group and LMA Protector group counted 70 and 73 patients, respectively.  LMA traditional group versus LMA Protector group showed no significant difference on time of LMA insertion (120±25 vs. 118±39 s; P=0.49), reposition rates (18% vs. 16%; P=0.78); systolic pressure (140±55 vs. 118±37 mmHg; P=0.59); diastolic pressure (82±15 vs. 90±26 mmHg; P=0.39); heart rate (82±9.9 vs. 83±20 bpm; P=0.49); SpO2 values (93±21% vs. 92±14%; P=0.63); diagnostic accuracy (91.3% vs. 92%; P=0.95), and patients' complications as nausea (4% vs. 3%; P=0.61); vomiting (3% vs. 1%, P=0.96); gastric aspiration (7% vs. 1%; P=0.08); and sore throat (7% vs. 3%; P=0.22).  Conversely, LMA traditional group versus LMA Protector group presented a longer procedural time (47±23 vs. 38±17 s; P=0.02), higher number of passage to biopsy target lesion (4±0.5 vs. 3.1±0.6; P=0.01); higher rate of balloon ultrasound rupture (11% vs. 1%; P=0.01).


 EBUS-TBNA conducted with LMA Protector is a useful strategy that reduced the procedural time and in theory ensured the comfort of patients. 
LMA
LMA® Protector™ versus traditional LMA to perform endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: a retrospective analysis.BACKGROUND
 The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of laryngeal mask airway (LMA)® Protector™ by comparison with traditional LMA for performing endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA).


 Patients were retrospectively divided into two groups based on whether a traditional LMA (traditional LMA group) or LMA Protector was used.  LMA traditional group and LMA Protector group counted 70 and 73 patients, respectively.  LMA traditional group versus LMA Protector group showed no significant difference on time of LMA insertion (120±25 vs. 118±39 s; P=0.49), reposition rates (18% vs. 16%; P=0.78); systolic pressure (140±55 vs. 118±37 mmHg; P=0.59); diastolic pressure (82±15 vs. 90±26 mmHg; P=0.39); heart rate (82±9.9 vs. 83±20 bpm; P=0.49); SpO2 values (93±21% vs. 92±14%; P=0.63); diagnostic accuracy (91.3% vs. 92%; P=0.95), and patients' complications as nausea (4% vs. 3%; P=0.61); vomiting (3% vs. 1%, P=0.96); gastric aspiration (7% vs. 1%; P=0.08); and sore throat (7% vs. 3%; P=0.22).  Conversely, LMA traditional group versus LMA Protector group presented a longer procedural time (47±23 vs. 38±17 s; P=0.02), higher number of passage to biopsy target lesion (4±0.5 vs. 3.1±0.6; P=0.01); higher rate of balloon ultrasound rupture (11% vs. 1%; P=0.01).


 EBUS-TBNA conducted with LMA Protector is a useful strategy that reduced the procedural time and in theory ensured the comfort of patients. 
LMA
LMA® Protector™ versus traditional LMA to perform endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: a retrospective analysis.BACKGROUND
 The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of laryngeal mask airway (LMA)® Protector™ by comparison with traditional LMA for performing endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA).


 Patients were retrospectively divided into two groups based on whether a traditional LMA (traditional LMA group) or LMA Protector was used.  LMA traditional group and LMA Protector group counted 70 and 73 patients, respectively.  LMA traditional group versus LMA Protector group showed no significant difference on time of LMA insertion (120±25 vs. 118±39 s; P=0.49), reposition rates (18% vs. 16%; P=0.78); systolic pressure (140±55 vs. 118±37 mmHg; P=0.59); diastolic pressure (82±15 vs. 90±26 mmHg; P=0.39); heart rate (82±9.9 vs. 83±20 bpm; P=0.49); SpO2 values (93±21% vs. 92±14%; P=0.63); diagnostic accuracy (91.3% vs. 92%; P=0.95), and patients' complications as nausea (4% vs. 3%; P=0.61); vomiting (3% vs. 1%, P=0.96); gastric aspiration (7% vs. 1%; P=0.08); and sore throat (7% vs. 3%; P=0.22).  Conversely, LMA traditional group versus LMA Protector group presented a longer procedural time (47±23 vs. 38±17 s; P=0.02), higher number of passage to biopsy target lesion (4±0.5 vs. 3.1±0.6; P=0.01); higher rate of balloon ultrasound rupture (11% vs. 1%; P=0.01).


 EBUS-TBNA conducted with LMA Protector is a useful strategy that reduced the procedural time and in theory ensured the comfort of patients. 
LMA
LMA® Protector™ versus traditional LMA to perform endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: a retrospective analysis.BACKGROUND
 The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of laryngeal mask airway (LMA)® Protector™ by comparison with traditional LMA for performing endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA).


 Patients were retrospectively divided into two groups based on whether a traditional LMA (traditional LMA group) or LMA Protector was used.  LMA traditional group and LMA Protector group counted 70 and 73 patients, respectively.  LMA traditional group versus LMA Protector group showed no significant difference on time of LMA insertion (120±25 vs. 118±39 s; P=0.49), reposition rates (18% vs. 16%; P=0.78); systolic pressure (140±55 vs. 118±37 mmHg; P=0.59); diastolic pressure (82±15 vs. 90±26 mmHg; P=0.39); heart rate (82±9.9 vs. 83±20 bpm; P=0.49); SpO2 values (93±21% vs. 92±14%; P=0.63); diagnostic accuracy (91.3% vs. 92%; P=0.95), and patients' complications as nausea (4% vs. 3%; P=0.61); vomiting (3% vs. 1%, P=0.96); gastric aspiration (7% vs. 1%; P=0.08); and sore throat (7% vs. 3%; P=0.22).  Conversely, LMA traditional group versus LMA Protector group presented a longer procedural time (47±23 vs. 38±17 s; P=0.02), higher number of passage to biopsy target lesion (4±0.5 vs. 3.1±0.6; P=0.01); higher rate of balloon ultrasound rupture (11% vs. 1%; P=0.01).


 EBUS-TBNA conducted with LMA Protector is a useful strategy that reduced the procedural time and in theory ensured the comfort of patients. 
LMA