Literature DB >> 11359590

A comparison of four methods for assessing oropharyngeal leak pressure with the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) in paediatric patients.

M Lopez-Gil1, J Brimacombe, C Keller.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study compares four tests for assessing oropharyngeal leak pressure with the laryngeal mask airway (LMA). We tested the hypothesis that the oropharyngeal leak pressure and interobserver reliability differs between tests.
METHODS: Eighty paralysed anaesthetized paediatric patients (weight 10-30 kg) were studied with the intracuff pressure set at 60 cmH2O. Four different oropharyngeal leak pressure tests were performed in random order on each patient by two observers blinded to each other's measurements. Test 1 involved detection of an audible noise. Test 2 involved detection of endtidal CO2 in the oral cavity. Test 3 involved observation of the aneroid manometer dial as the pressure increased and noting the airway pressure at which the dial reaches stability. Test 4 involved detection of an audible noise by neck stethoscopy.
RESULTS: The mean oropharyngeal leak pressure was 12.5 cmH2O and was similar between tests. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.99 for all tests and was classed as excellent.
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that all four tests provide accurate and reliable information about oropharyngeal leak pressure in children.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11359590     DOI: 10.1046/j.1460-9592.2001.00649.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Paediatr Anaesth        ISSN: 1155-5645            Impact factor:   2.556


  21 in total

1.  Randomized evaluation of the size 2 laryngeal tube and classical laryngeal mask airway in different head and neck positions in children under positive pressure ventilation.

Authors:  Andreas Biedler; Marc Wrobel; Sven Schneider; Stefan Soltész; Stephan Ziegeler; Ulrich Grundmann
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2013-03-04       Impact factor: 2.078

2.  [Use of the size 3 ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in children. Results of a randomized crossover investigation with the Classic laryngeal mask airway].

Authors:  K Goldmann; C Roettger; H Wulf
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 1.041

3.  An evaluation of the I-gel supraglottic airway in 70 pediatric patients.

Authors:  Tze Yeng Yeoh; Koo Boon Chan; Lynn S H Yeo; Eugene H C Liu; Terry L T Pan
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2014-09-12       Impact factor: 2.078

4.  [Clinical use of the ProSeal™ laryngeal mask in infants, children and adolescents : prospective observational survey].

Authors:  K Goldmann; A Malik; C Hechtfischer
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2011-04-10       Impact factor: 1.041

5.  Randomized crossover study assessing oropharyngeal leak pressure and fiber optic positioning : Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme™ versus Laryngeal Tube LTS II™ size 2 in non-paralyzed anesthetized children.

Authors:  L Gasteiger; S Ofner; B Stögermüller; B Ziegler; J Brimacombe; C Keller
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 1.041

6.  Comparison of Clinical Performance of I-Gel with LMA-Proseal in Elective Surgeries.

Authors:  Ishwar Singh; Monika Gupta; Mansi Tandon
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2009-06

7.  Supraglottic Airway Devices for Elective Pediatric Anesthesia: I-gel versus Air-Q, Which is the Best?

Authors:  Rami Mounir Wahba; Milad Zekry Ragaei; Ayman Anis Metry; George Mikhael Nakhla
Journal:  Anesth Essays Res       Date:  2021-03-22

8.  A prospective, randomized, Single-blinded, comparative study of Classic Laryngeal Mask Airway and ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway in pediatric patients.

Authors:  Bikramjit Das; Shahin N Jamil; Subhro Mitra; Rohit K Varshney
Journal:  J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2012-07

9.  A comparison of supraglottic airway i-gel™ vs. classic laryngeal mask airway in small children.

Authors:  Ju-Hyun Lee; Hyun-Seok Cho; Won-Jung Shin; Hong-Seuk Yang
Journal:  Korean J Anesthesiol       Date:  2014-02-28

10.  Extraglottic airway devices: A review.

Authors:  Ramesh Ramaiah; Debasmita Das; Sanjay M Bhananker; Aaron M Joffe
Journal:  Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci       Date:  2014-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.