{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,8]],"date-time":"2025-12-08T16:35:12Z","timestamp":1765211712106,"version":"3.46.0"},"reference-count":20,"publisher":"MDPI AG","issue":"23","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2025,11,30]],"date-time":"2025-11-30T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1764460800000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["JCM"],"abstract":"<jats:p>Background\/Objectives: Supraglottic airway devices are commonly used airway management tools, with various second-generation laryngeal masks available for patients undergoing general anesthesia. These devices offer improved sealing, gastric suction capabilities, and the potential for tracheal intubation. This study compared the recently introduced SingularityTM Air laryngeal mask with two well-established devices, Ambu\u00ae AuraGainTM and i-GEL\u00ae, under clinical conditions. Methods: We prospectively included 98 adult patients scheduled for elective surgery requiring general anesthesia. Patients were randomized to one of three laryngeal mask groups, and data on insertion success, ventilation efficiency, and postoperative complications, such as sore throat and dysesthesia, were collected. The primary endpoint was oropharyngeal sealing pressure, with additional assessments of insertion ease and bronchoscopic glottic visibility. Results: Median initial oropharyngeal leak pressure was lowest with i-GEL\u00ae (22 cm H2O) as opposed to Ambu\u00ae AuraGainTM (25 cm H2O) and SingularityTM Air (25 cm H2O) [p = 0.0138], but this difference equalized after 15\u201330 min. I-GEL\u00ae showed higher insertion success (88%, p = 0.001) and shorter time-to-first ventilation (29 s, p = 0.0106). Conversely, the gastric tube insertion rate was lower (70% versus &gt;90% in the other masks). The Ambu\u00ae AuraGainTM and SingularityTM Air performed similarly for most parameters. No significant differences were observed in tracheal intubation potential or postoperative adverse events among the three groups. Conclusions: The SingularityTM Air performed comparably to Ambu\u00ae AuraGainTM and i-Gel laryngeal masks in oropharyngeal sealing pressure. I-Gel\u00ae had the highest successful insertion rate. Most of the differences detected were not statistically significant, with all three masks providing effective airway management.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.3390\/jcm14238513","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,8]],"date-time":"2025-12-08T16:20:29Z","timestamp":1765210829000},"page":"8513","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/mdpi_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Randomized Prospective Comparison of the SingularityTM Air Laryngeal Mask and Two Second-Generation Laryngeal Masks in Adult Patients"],"prefix":"10.3390","volume":"14","author":[{"given":"Danijel","family":"Novina","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Institute for Anesthesiology, Spital Thurgau Frauenfeld, 8501 Frauenfeld, Switzerland"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Nadja","family":"Ettlin","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Institute for Anesthesiology, Spital Thurgau Frauenfeld, 8501 Frauenfeld, Switzerland"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Norbert","family":"Nickel","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Institute for Anesthesiology, Spital Thurgau Frauenfeld, 8501 Frauenfeld, Switzerland"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Norbert","family":"Aeppli","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Institute for Anesthesiology, Spital Thurgau Frauenfeld, 8501 Frauenfeld, Switzerland"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0003-1458-6121","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"JoEllen","family":"Welter","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Institute for Anesthesiology, Spital Thurgau Frauenfeld, 8501 Frauenfeld, Switzerland"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-1456-6457","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Alexander","family":"Dullenkopf","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Institute for Anesthesiology, Spital Thurgau Frauenfeld, 8501 Frauenfeld, Switzerland"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"1968","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2025,11,30]]},"reference":[{"key":"ref_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"451","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ccc.2022.12.003","article-title":"Airway management during the last 100 years","volume":"39","author":"Vaida","year":"2023","journal-title":"Crit. Care Clin."},{"key":"ref_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"251","DOI":"10.1097\/ALN.0b013e31827773b2","article-title":"Practice guidelines for management of the difficult airway: An updated report by the american society of anesthesiologists task force on management of the difficult airway","volume":"118","author":"Apfelbaum","year":"2013","journal-title":"Anesthesiology"},{"key":"ref_3","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"827","DOI":"10.1093\/bja\/aev371","article-title":"Difficult airway society 2015 guidelines for management of unanticipated difficult intubation in adults","volume":"115","author":"Frerk","year":"2015","journal-title":"Br. J. Anaesth."},{"key":"ref_4","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"265","DOI":"10.1213\/ANE.0000000000006951","article-title":"Second-generation supraglottic airway devices versus endotracheal intubation in adults undergoing abdominopelvic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis","volume":"140","author":"Kapsokalyvas","year":"2025","journal-title":"Anesth. Analg."},{"key":"ref_5","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"144","DOI":"10.1097\/00000542-199307000-00021","article-title":"The laryngeal mask airway. Its uses in anesthesiology","volume":"79","author":"Pennant","year":"1993","journal-title":"Anesthesiology"},{"key":"ref_6","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"649","DOI":"10.4103\/ija.IJA_938_20","article-title":"Supraglottic airway devices: Placement and pharyngeal seal matters!","volume":"64","author":"Solanki","year":"2020","journal-title":"Indian J. Anaesth."},{"key":"ref_7","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1284","DOI":"10.1016\/j.bja.2024.09.001","article-title":"Choice of supraglottic airway devices: A network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials","volume":"133","author":"Kanakaraj","year":"2024","journal-title":"Br. J. Anaesth."},{"key":"ref_8","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Gasteiger, L., Hornung, R., Woyke, S., Hoerner, E., Neururer, S., and Moser, B. (2022). Evaluation of the new singularity(tm) air versus ambu((r)) aura gain(tm): A randomized, crossover mannequin study. J. Clin. Med., 11.","DOI":"10.3390\/jcm11247266"},{"key":"ref_9","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Martins, J., Beutel, B., Ettlin, N., Nickel, N., Wuthrich, R., Sandoz, R., Borisov, A., Welter, J., and Dullenkopf, A. (2023). Prospective clinical evaluation of the singularity air laryngeal mask in adult patients. J. Clin. Med., 12.","DOI":"10.3390\/jcm12237312"},{"key":"ref_10","first-page":"457","article-title":"A proposed fiber-optic scoring system to standardize the assessment of laryngeal mask airway position","volume":"76","author":"Brimacombe","year":"1993","journal-title":"Anesth. Analg."},{"key":"ref_11","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Henlin, T., Sotak, M., Kovaricek, P., Tyll, T., Balcarek, L., and Michalek, P. (2015). Comparison of five 2nd-generation supraglottic airway devices for airway management performed by novice military operators. Biomed. Res. Int., 2015.","DOI":"10.1155\/2015\/201898"},{"key":"ref_12","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"727","DOI":"10.23736\/S0375-9393.20.14237-8","article-title":"Comparison of the i-gel with the auragain laryngeal mask airways in patients with a simulated cervical immobilization: A randomized controlled trial","volume":"86","author":"Hur","year":"2020","journal-title":"Minerva Anestesiol."},{"key":"ref_13","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"684","DOI":"10.23736\/S0375-9393.17.12254-6","article-title":"A prospective, randomized trial of the ambu auragain laryngeal mask versus the lma(r) protector airway in paralyzed, anesthetized adult men","volume":"84","author":"Moser","year":"2018","journal-title":"Minerva Anestesiol."},{"key":"ref_14","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"589","DOI":"10.1111\/aas.14042","article-title":"Auragain versus i-gel for bronchoscopic intubation under continuous oxygenation: A randomised controlled trial","volume":"66","author":"Svendsen","year":"2022","journal-title":"Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand."},{"key":"ref_15","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"165","DOI":"10.23736\/S0375-9393.16.11112-5","article-title":"Lma supreme and ambu(r) auragain in anesthetized adult patients: A prospective observational study","volume":"83","author":"Kriege","year":"2017","journal-title":"Minerva Anestesiol."},{"key":"ref_16","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"480","DOI":"10.1213\/ANE.0000000000003849","article-title":"Prospective, randomized comparison of the i-gel and the self-pressurized air-q intubating laryngeal airway in elderly anesthetized patients","volume":"130","author":"Lee","year":"2020","journal-title":"Anesth. Analg."},{"key":"ref_17","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e5801","DOI":"10.1097\/MD.0000000000005801","article-title":"Comparison of the i-gel and other supraglottic airways in adult manikin studies: Systematic review and meta-analysis","volume":"96","author":"An","year":"2017","journal-title":"Medicine"},{"key":"ref_18","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Park, S.K., Choi, G.J., Choi, Y.S., Ahn, E.J., and Kang, H. (2015). Comparison of the i-gel and the laryngeal mask airway proseal during general anesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 10.","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0119469"},{"key":"ref_19","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Tan, Y., Jiang, J., and Wang, R. (2022). Contrast of oropharyngeal leak pressure and clinical performance of i-gel and lma proseal in patients: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 17.","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0278871"},{"key":"ref_20","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Russo, S.G., Cremer, S., Galli, T., Eich, C., Brauer, A., Crozier, T.A., Bauer, M., and Strack, M. (2012). Randomized comparison of the i-gel, the lma supreme, and the laryngeal tube suction-d using clinical and fibreoptic assessments in elective patients. BMC Anesthesiol., 12.","DOI":"10.1186\/1471-2253-12-18"}],"container-title":["Journal of Clinical Medicine"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.mdpi.com\/2077-0383\/14\/23\/8513\/pdf","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,8]],"date-time":"2025-12-08T16:30:13Z","timestamp":1765211413000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.mdpi.com\/2077-0383\/14\/23\/8513"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2025,11,30]]},"references-count":20,"journal-issue":{"issue":"23","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2025,12]]}},"alternative-id":["jcm14238513"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/jcm14238513","relation":{},"ISSN":["2077-0383"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2077-0383","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2025,11,30]]}}}