Literature DB >> 10631418

A comparison of the reinforced and standard laryngeal mask airway: ease of insertion and the influence of head and neck position on oropharyngeal leak pressure and intracuff pressure.

M Buckham1, M Brooker, J Brimacombe, C Keller.   

Abstract

We conducted a randomized, crossover study of 60 paralysed anaesthetized adult patients to compare ease of insertion for the reinforced (RLMA) and standard laryngeal mask airway (LMA). We also test the hypothesis that oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) and intracuff pressure (ICP) vary with head and neck position for the two devices. OLP and ICP were documented in four head and neck positions (neutral first, then flexion, extension and rotation in random order) for each device. The size 5 was used for all patients and the ICP was set at 60 cm H2O in the neutral position. The first time insertion success rates were similar (LMA: 60/60 v RLMA; 59/60), but insertion time was slightly less for the LMA (6 v 8 s, P = 0.004). Compared with the neutral position, OLP for the LMA was higher in flexion (21 v 28 cm H2O, P < 0.0001) and rotation (21 v 23 cm H2O, P < 0.0001), but lower in extension (21 v 14 cm H2O, P < 0.0001). Compared with the neutral position, OLP for the RLMA was higher in flexion (19 v 27 cm H2O, P < 0.0001), similar in rotation (20 v 19 cm H2O), but lower in extension (27 v 14 cm H2O, P < 0.0001). The difference in OLP between flexion and extension was 13 and 14 cm H2O for the RLMA and LMA respectively. OLP was slightly higher for the LMA compared with the RLMA when the head was in neutral (P < 0.0001) and rotation (P < 0.0001), but was similar during flexion and extension. There was a significant positive correlation between ICP and OLP for the LMA (P < 0.0001) and RLMA (P < 0.0001). We conclude that ease of insertion is similar for the RLMA and LMA. OLP is higher with head/neck flexion and lower with extension for both devices and is associated with a similar change in ICP. We recommend assessing the efficacy of seal for all head and neck positions likely to be encountered prior to the start of surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10631418     DOI: 10.1177/0310057X9902700612

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anaesth Intensive Care        ISSN: 0310-057X            Impact factor:   1.669


  5 in total

1.  [Comparison of two different laryngeal mask models for airway management in patients with immobilization of the cervical spine].

Authors:  C Gernoth; O Jandewerth; M Contzen; J Hinkelbein; H Genzwürker
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 1.041

2.  Laryngeal mask placement in a teaching institution: analysis of difficult placements.

Authors:  Anastasia D Katsiampoura; Peter V Killoran; Ruggero M Corso; Chunyan Cai; Carin A Hagberg; Davide Cattano
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2015-04-29

3.  Comparison of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway with the I-Gel™ in the different head-and-neck positions in anaesthetised paralysed children: A randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Gargi Banerjee; Divya Jain; Indu Bala; Komal Gandhi; Ram Samujh
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2018-02

4.  Comparison of i-gel™ and Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme™ in Different Head and Neck Positions in Spontaneously Breathing Pediatric Population.

Authors:  Swati Gupta; Neelam Dogra; Kanchan Chauhan
Journal:  Anesth Essays Res       Date:  2017 Jul-Sep

5.  Influence of head and neck position on the performance of supraglottic airway devices: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Min-Soo Kim; Jin Ha Park; Ki-Young Lee; Seung Ho Choi; Hwan Ho Jung; Ji-Ho Kim; Bora Lee
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-05-09       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.