J Brimacombe1, C Keller. 1. University of Queensland James Cook University, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Cairns Base Hospital, The Esplanade, Australia. jbrimacombe@austarnet.com.au
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The LMA-ProSeal laryngeal mask airway is a new laryngeal mask airway with a modified cuff and drainage tube. We compared oropharyngeal leak pressure, intracuff pressure and anatomical position (assessed fibreoptically) for the Size 5 LMA-ProSeal laryngeal mask airway and the classic laryngeal mask airway in different head-neck positions and using different intracuff inflation volumes. METHODS:Thirty paralysed anaesthetized adult male patients were studied. The LMA-ProSeal laryngeal mask airway and the classic laryngeal mask airway were inserted into each patient in random order. The oropharyngeal leak pressure, intracuff pressure, and anatomical position of the airway tube and drainage tube (LMA-ProSeal laryngeal mask airway only) were documented in four head and neck positions (neutral first, then flexion, extension and rotation in random order), and at 0-40 mL cuff volumes in the neutral position in 10 mL increments. RESULTS: Compared with the neutral position, the oropharyngeal leak pressure for both the LMA-ProSeal laryngeal mask airway and the classic laryngeal mask airway was higher in flexion and rotation (all P < or = 0.02), but lower in extension (all P < or = 0.01). Changes in head-neck position did not alter the anatomical position of the airway tube or the drainage tube. The oropharyngeal leak pressure was always higher for the LMA-ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (all P < or = 0.005) and anatomical position better for the classic laryngeal mask airway (all P < or = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The anatomical position of the LMA-ProSeal and the classic laryngeal mask airway is stable in different head-neck positions, but head-neck flexion and rotation are associated with an increase, and head-neck extension a decrease, in oropharyngeal leak pressure and intracuff pressure. The Size 5 LMA-ProSeal laryngeal mask airway is capable of forming a more effective seal than the Size 5 classic laryngeal mask airway in males.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The LMA-ProSeal laryngeal mask airway is a new laryngeal mask airway with a modified cuff and drainage tube. We compared oropharyngeal leak pressure, intracuff pressure and anatomical position (assessed fibreoptically) for the Size 5 LMA-ProSeal laryngeal mask airway and the classic laryngeal mask airway in different head-neck positions and using different intracuff inflation volumes. METHODS: Thirty paralysed anaesthetized adult male patients were studied. The LMA-ProSeal laryngeal mask airway and the classic laryngeal mask airway were inserted into each patient in random order. The oropharyngeal leak pressure, intracuff pressure, and anatomical position of the airway tube and drainage tube (LMA-ProSeal laryngeal mask airway only) were documented in four head and neck positions (neutral first, then flexion, extension and rotation in random order), and at 0-40 mL cuff volumes in the neutral position in 10 mL increments. RESULTS: Compared with the neutral position, the oropharyngeal leak pressure for both the LMA-ProSeal laryngeal mask airway and the classic laryngeal mask airway was higher in flexion and rotation (all P < or = 0.02), but lower in extension (all P < or = 0.01). Changes in head-neck position did not alter the anatomical position of the airway tube or the drainage tube. The oropharyngeal leak pressure was always higher for the LMA-ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (all P < or = 0.005) and anatomical position better for the classic laryngeal mask airway (all P < or = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The anatomical position of the LMA-ProSeal and the classic laryngeal mask airway is stable in different head-neck positions, but head-neck flexion and rotation are associated with an increase, and head-neck extension a decrease, in oropharyngeal leak pressure and intracuff pressure. The Size 5 LMA-ProSeal laryngeal mask airway is capable of forming a more effective seal than the Size 5 classic laryngeal mask airway in males.
Authors: Sandeep Kumar Mishra; Mohammad Nawaz; M V S Satyapraksh; Satyen Parida; Prasanna Udupi Bidkar; Balachander Hemavathy; Pankaj Kundra Journal: Anesthesiol Res Pract Date: 2015-01-11
Authors: Go Wun Kim; Jong Yeop Kim; Soo Jin Kim; Yeo Rae Moon; Eun Jeong Park; Sung Yong Park Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2019-01-05 Impact factor: 2.217