Literature DB >> 15673899

The ProSeal has a shorter life-span than the Classic laryngeal mask airway.

Sarah Doneley1, Joseph Brimacombe, Christian Keller, Achim von Goedecke.   

Abstract

We tested the hypothesis that the life-span of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (LMA) is shorter than the Classic LMA. We also compared residual cuff volumes and changes in elastance and permeability with use. Six new size 4 ProSeal LMAs and 6 new size 4 Classic LMAs were tested. Each LMA underwent a simulated clinical use cycle until it failed the pre-use check tests. The simulated clinical use cycle comprised: i) inflating the cuff to the maximum recommended volume for 1 h; ii) immersion in an enzymatic solution for 3 min; iii) washing the external and internal surfaces; iv) automatic washing for 14 min (< or =85 degrees C); v) drying for 30 min (< or =75 degrees C); and vi) autoclaving at 134 degrees C for 4 min at 206 kPa. Before the first cycle and every 10 subsequent cycles, the cuff was inflated with 40 mL air and the intracuff pressure was measured immediately and 3 h later. The initial intracuff pressure was taken to be an inverse measure of the elastance or resistance to deformation, and the intracuff pressure change were taken as a measure of the permeability. The residual cuff volume was determined for 10 Classic and 10 ProSeal size 4 LMAs using a gas dilution technique. The mean +/- sd (range) longevity for the ProSeal LMA and Classic LMA was 82 +/- 23 (45-109) uses and 133 +/- 35 (76-176) uses, respectively. The ProSeal LMA has a shorter life-span than the Classic LMA (P = 0.01). For the ProSeal LMA, there was no change in elastance or permeability with use. For the Classic LMA, there was a decrease in elastance (P < 0.0001) and an increase in permeability (P < 0.0001) with use. The residual cuff volume was higher for the ProSeal LMA (2.6 +/- 1.3 mL versus 1.5 +/- 0.9, P = 0.04). We conclude that the life-span of the ProSeal LMA is shorter than the Classic LMA, but both exceed the manufacturer's recommendations of 40 uses. We recommend that reusable LMA devices be discarded when they fail the pre-use check tests, rather than after a specific number of uses.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15673899     DOI: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000144068.26632.B7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesth Analg        ISSN: 0003-2999            Impact factor:   5.108


  7 in total

1.  Unconventional Method of Repairing the Inflation Line of Ambu Laryngeal Mask Airway.

Authors:  Rafat Shamim; Ashutosh Kaushal; Rudrashish Haldar
Journal:  Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim       Date:  2016-12-01

2.  Damaged Proseal™ LMA inflation line can be repaired.

Authors:  Pankaj Kundra; Bhaskar Nisha
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2010-09

3.  Red plug: An alternative to the blocked ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway inflation valve.

Authors:  Bimla Sharma; Chand Sahai; Jayashree Sood
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2011-05

4.  Survey of supraglottic airway devices usage in anaesthetic practice in South Indian State.

Authors:  S Mohideen Abdul Kadar; Rachel Koshy
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2015-03

5.  How Much Is Too Much in a Reusable Laryngeal Mask Airway?

Authors:  Abhishek Arya; Sonali Turki; Kamal Kajal
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-09-08

6.  Difficulty in proseal laryngeal mask airway insertion: An unusual cause.

Authors:  Renu Sinha; Bikash Ranjan Ray
Journal:  J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2013-07

7.  Restoration of 'red plug' to rescue a ProSeal(®) laryngeal mask airway.

Authors:  S K Singhal; Swati Chhabra
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2016-04
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.