Literature DB >> 12393771

The laryngeal tube compared with the laryngeal mask: insertion, gas leak pressure and gastric insufflation.

T Asai1, A Kawashima, I Hidaka, S Kawachi.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We have compared the laryngeal tube and laryngeal mask in 22 patients for the success rate of insertion, gas leak pressure and the incidence of gastric insufflation.
METHOD: In a randomized, crossover design, the laryngeal tube and laryngeal mask were inserted in turn after induction of anaesthesia and neuromuscular block. The cuffs were inflated until the intracuff pressure reached 60 cm H(2)O. We measured adequacy of ventilation and the minimum airway pressure at which gas leaked around the cuff. The presence or absence of gastric insufflation was studied at an inflation pressure of 20 cm H(2)O.
RESULTS: It was possible to ventilate through the laryngeal tube in 21 patients and through the laryngeal mask in 21 patients. The mean leak pressure for the laryngeal tube (26 (SD 5) cm H(2)O) was significantly greater than that for the laryngeal mask (19 (4) cm H(2)O) (P<0.01; 95% confidence intervals for mean difference: 5.3-10.2 cm H(2)O). Gastric insufflation did not occur when the laryngeal tube was used and was noted in three patients when the laryngeal mask was used.
CONCLUSION: The laryngeal tube provides a better seal in the oropharynx than the laryngeal mask.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12393771

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


  13 in total

1.  Comparison of the intubating laryngeal mask airway and laryngeal tube placement during manual in-line stabilisation of the neck.

Authors:  R Komatsu; O Nagata; K Kamata; K Yamagata; D I Sessler; M Ozaki
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 6.955

Review 2.  [Methods of airway management in prehospital emergency medicine].

Authors:  W Keul; M Bernhard; A Völkl; R Gust; A Gries
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 1.041

Review 3.  [Supraglottic airway devices].

Authors:  K Schwarzkopf
Journal:  Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed       Date:  2012-09-26       Impact factor: 0.840

4.  [Comparison between the laryngeal tubus S and endotracheal intubation. Simulation of securing the airway in an emergency situation].

Authors:  A Thierbach; T Piepho; B Kleine-Weischede; G Haag; M Maybauer; C Werner
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2006-02       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.  [Reduction in no flow time using a laryngeal tube: comparison to bag-mask ventilation].

Authors:  C H R Wiese; J Bahr; A Bergmann; I Bergmann; U Bartels; B M Graf
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 1.041

7.  [First clinical experiences with the new LTS. A laryngeal tube with an oesophageal drain].

Authors:  H Genzwürker; T Finteis; J Hinkelbein; K Ellinger
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2003-06-19       Impact factor: 1.041

8.  [Laryngeal tube versus laryngeal mask airway in anaesthetised non-paralysed patientsA comparison of handling and postoperative morbidity].

Authors:  M Wrobel; U Grundmann; W Wilhelm; S Wagner; R Larsen
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 1.041

9.  Newer airway devices: Future promising?

Authors:  S Bala Bhaskar
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2011-09

10.  Comparison of intragastric pressure between endotracheal tube and supraglottic airway devices in laparoscopic hepatectomy: A randomized, controlled, non-inferiority study.

Authors:  Jin Hee Ahn; Ji Seon Jeong; Se Hee Kang; Ji Eun Yeon; Eun A Cho; Gyu Sung Choi; Jong Man Kim; Gaab Soo Kim
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-06-18       Impact factor: 1.817

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.