Literature DB >> 10655925

Re-evaluation of appropriate size of the laryngeal mask airway.

T Asai1, K Murao, H Yukawa, K Shingu.   

Abstract

We have assessed 32 males and 31 females in a randomized, crossover study to see if there was any difference in the correct positioning of the laryngeal mask, optimal ventilation (defined as no gas leak around the mask at an airway pressure of 18 cm H2O) and cuff visibility between sizes 4 and 5 masks in males and sizes 3 and 4 in females. The position of the mask in relation to the glottis was assessed using a fibreoptic bronchoscope. There was no significant difference in correct positioning between the two sizes in either sex. Gas leak was significantly less frequent for a larger than a smaller mask (P < 0.01 for both sexes), whereas the cuff was more often seen in the mouth with larger masks (P < 0.02 for males and P < 0.01 for females). Therefore, larger masks (size 4 in females and size 5 in males) provided a better seal than smaller sizes without worsening the relative position of the mask to the glottis; however, the larger mask came up within the mouth more often, which could interfere with tonsillectomy and could increase the risk of sore throat or lingual nerve damage.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10655925     DOI: 10.1093/bja/83.3.478

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Anaesth        ISSN: 0007-0912            Impact factor:   9.166


  8 in total

1.  Cricoid-mental distance-based versus weight-based criteria for size selection of classic laryngeal mask airway in adults: a randomized controlled study.

Authors:  Yanling Zhu; Weihua Shen; Yiquan Lin; Ting Huang; Ling Xie; Yao Yang; Hongbin Chen; Xiaoliang Gan
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2019-04-08       Impact factor: 2.502

2.  Muscle relaxant effects on insertion efficacy of the laryngeal mask ProSeal(®) in anesthetized patients: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Atsushi Fujiwara; Nobuyasu Komasawa; Isao Nishihara; Shinichiro Miyazaki; Shinichi Tatsumi; Wataru Nishimura; Toshiaki Minami
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2015-02-10       Impact factor: 2.078

3.  Comparison of the size 3 and size 4 ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized, non-paralyzed women: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Mi-Hyun Kim; Jung-Won Hwang; Eun-Sung Kim; Sung-Hee Han; Young-Tae Jeon; Sun-Mi Lee
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2014-09-24       Impact factor: 2.078

4.  Six hours positive pressure ventilation with size 5 laryngeal mask in a 55-kg patient.

Authors:  Jayashree Patki; C Naresh K Reddy
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2010-03

5.  Low flow anesthesia: Efficacy and outcome of laryngeal mask airway versus pressure-optimized cuffed-endotracheal tube.

Authors:  Zeinab A El-Seify; Ahmed Metwally Khattab; Ashraf Shaaban; Dobrila Radojevic; Ivanka Jankovic
Journal:  Saudi J Anaesth       Date:  2010-01

6.  Comparison of actual and ideal body weight for selection of appropriate size of ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway in overweight and obese patients: A prospective, randomised study.

Authors:  Sohan Lal Solanki; Jeson R Doctor; Kamlesh K Shekhawat; Sheila Nainan Myatra; Malini Joshi; Jigeeshu V Divatia
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2017-05

7.  Randomized Comparison of Actual and Ideal Body Weight for Size Selection of the Laryngeal Mask Airway Classic in Overweight Patients.

Authors:  Min-Soo Kim; Jong Seok Lee; Sang Beom Nam; Hyo Jong Kang; Ji Eun Kim
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2015-07-15       Impact factor: 2.153

8.  Clinical performance of the LMA Protector™ airway in moderately obese patients.

Authors:  Ina Ismiarti Shariffuddin; Sook Hui Chaw; Ling Wei Ng; Ching Hooi Lim; Mohd Fitry Zainal Abidin; Wan A Wan Zakaria; Wendy H Teoh
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2020-07-31       Impact factor: 2.217

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.