Literature DB >> 15920181

A randomized crossover comparison of the size 2 1/2 laryngeal mask airway ProSeal versus laryngeal mask airway-Classic in pediatric patients.

Kai Goldmann1, Christian Jakob.   

Abstract

The laryngeal mask airway (LMA)-ProSeal (P-LMA) forms a more effective seal than the LMA-Classic (C-LMA) and facilitates gastric tube (g-tube) placement in adults. The first pediatric sizes of P-LMA recently became available. In 30 anesthetized, nonparalyzed children, aged 7.7 +/- 2 yr and weighing 27 (20-35) kg, we inserted the size (1/2) P-LMA and C-LMA in random order. Ease of insertion, quality of initial airway, fiberoptic position, airway leak pressure, and maximum tidal volume were determined. G-tube placement was assessed for the P-LMA. Ease of insertion was similar for both devices. The quality of the initial airway was better for the P-LMA (P = 0.01). Airway leak pressure in neutral head position (22.6 versus 18.5 mbar; P = 0.003), maximum flexion (37 versus 26.3 mbar; P < 0.001), maximum extension (15.2 versus 13 mbar; P = 0.045), and maximum tidal volume (1088 versus 949 mL; P = 0.002) were significantly better for the P-LMA. Air entry into the stomach occurred with the C-LMA but not with the P-LMA (P = 0.014). G-tube placement was possible in all patients. The reliability of g-tube placement and the significantly increased airway leak pressure found in this investigation might have important implications for use of the size (1/2) P-LMA for positive pressure ventilation in children.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15920181     DOI: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000152640.25078.90

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


  9 in total

1.  Comparison of clinical performance of size 1.5 Supreme™ LMA and Proseal™ LMA among Asian children: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Sook Hui Chaw; Ina I Shariffuddin; Li Lian Foo; Pui Kuan Lee; Ramona Maya Paran; Peak Chee Cheang; Lucy Chan
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 2.502

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.  [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

4.  Size 2.5 ProSeal(™) LMA: Is it associated with increased attempts at insertion?

Authors:  Aparna Sinha; Bimla Sharma; Jayashree Sood
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2012-01

5.  Comparison of ProSeal laryngeal mask airway size 2 and 2½ in anesthetized and paralyzed pediatric patients with same weight group: A prospective randomized clinical study.

Authors:  Reena Mahajan; Susheela Taxak
Journal:  Anesth Essays Res       Date:  2014 Sep-Dec

6.  Comparison of the Laryngeal Mask Airways: Laryngeal Mask Airway-classic and Laryngeal Mask Airway-proseal in Children.

Authors:  Chetan B Bhat; Kiran A Honnannavar; Mallanna B Police Patil; Mahantesh S Mudakanagoudar
Journal:  Anesth Essays Res       Date:  2018 Jan-Mar

7.  The place of ultrasonography in confirming the position of the laryngeal mask airway in pediatric patients: an observational study.

Authors:  Sule Arican; Sevgi Pekcan; Gulcin Hacibeyoglu; Merve Yusifov; Sait Yuce; Sema Tuncer Uzun
Journal:  Braz J Anesthesiol       Date:  2021-02-03

8.  Blind intubation through Laryngeal Mask Airway in a cannot intubate-difficult to ventilate patient with massive hematemesis.

Authors:  Rita Cataldo; Ivana Zdravkovic; Zaklina Petrovic; Ruggero M Corso; Giuseppe Pascarella; Massimiliano Sorbello
Journal:  Saudi J Anaesth       Date:  2021-04-01

9.  Comparison of I-gel with proseal LMA in adult patients undergoing elective surgical procedures under general anesthesia without paralysis: A prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Gurudas Kini; Gopalkrishna Mettinadka Devanna; Koteswara Rao Mukkapati; Souvik Chaudhuri; Daniel Thomas
Journal:  J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2014-04
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.