Background: Classic laryngeal mask was introduced in anesthesia in 1988. Initially it was used as a facial mask substitute, but later onit was used in procedures where endotracheal tube was utilized, including those with positive pressure. It is useful when an endotracheal tube can not be used. Safety and efficacy in pediatric patients was probed. Original design of this laryngeal mask was modified and a new coupling with a hole for a drainage probe was added. Objective: Efficacy and safety of classic larygeal mask vs proseal laryngeal mask in children. Search methods for identification of studies.- Literature was searched in data bases of: Cochrane, Embase, Pubmed, Lilacs, Scielo with next Mesh terms: laryngeal mask proseal, laryngeal mask, airway, with next limits: children OR pediatrics, OR infant. Wemade gray literature search in anesthesiology meetings memories. None limitation in language or time was applied. Type of Studies: Randomized Clinical Trials and Quasirandomized in children Data Extraction and analysis. Two reviewers independently (LACPM and ERM) assessed eligibility of each and every single paper. Disagree was solved by a third reviewer. Methodology quality was assessed by Jovell and Grade Working Group Scales. Results: There were 565 patients in 8 papers. None of them was blinded by the characteristics of the dispositives. Clinical efficacy is almost the same in both laryngeal masks, but O2 saturation is better in proseal laryngeal mask. Laryngeal mask malposition appears in 5 15%, but is solved when it happens. Air blowing into gastric chamber occurs more frequently in classic laryngeal mask (not a single paper reports the confidence interval). Conclusion: Proseal laryngeal mask is better than classic laryngeal mask in airway management in children.