Literature DB >> 16328475

[Comparison of two different laryngeal mask models for airway management in patients with immobilization of the cervical spine].

C Gernoth1, O Jandewerth, M Contzen, J Hinkelbein, H Genzwürker.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Reduced cervical spine mobility can impair laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation. Supraglottic airway devices can be important alternatives for oxygenation under these circumstances. The Ambu laryngeal mask (ALM) and the LMA-Classic (LMA) are compared in patients with immobilization of the cervical spine.
METHODS: In 60 patients scheduled for elective ambulatory interventions, ALM or LMA were inserted after cervical immobilization with an extrication collar and assessment of laryngoscopic view. Insertion time (removal of facemask until first tidal volume), number of insertion attempts, airway leak pressure (cuff pressure 60 cm H(2)O), intraoperative complications and postoperative complaints were assessed.
RESULTS: Demographical data, insertion attempts, insertion time (ALM 15.6+/-4.4 s, LMA 15.5+/-4.9 s) and airway leak pressure (ALM 25.6+/-5.2 cm H(2)O, LMA 26.5+/-6.5 cm H(2)O) were comparable. Traces of blood were found in 6 LMAs and 3 ALMs after removal, mild trouble with swallowing (visual analogue scale, VAS 2-4) in the recovery room and after 24 h were complaints by 1 ALM and 2 LMA patients.
CONCLUSIONS: LMA-Classic and Ambu laryngeal masks are suitable for rapid and reliable airway management in patients with cervical immobilization.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16328475     DOI: 10.1007/s00101-005-0921-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anaesthesist        ISSN: 0003-2417            Impact factor:   1.041


  23 in total

1.  A comparison of the reinforced and standard laryngeal mask airway: ease of insertion and the influence of head and neck position on oropharyngeal leak pressure and intracuff pressure.

Authors:  M Buckham; M Brooker; J Brimacombe; C Keller
Journal:  Anaesth Intensive Care       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 1.669

Review 2.  Spinal cord injury and direct laryngoscopy--the legend lives on.

Authors:  A D McLeod; I Calder
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 9.166

3.  Presence of protein deposits on 'cleaned' re-usable anaesthetic equipment.

Authors:  D M Miller; I Youkhana; W U Karunaratne; A Pearce
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 6.955

Review 4.  Part 6: advanced cardiovascular life support. Section 3: adjuncts for oxygenation, ventilation, and airway control. European Resuscitation Council.

Authors: 
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2000-08-23       Impact factor: 5.262

5.  [Comparison of different laryngeal mask airways in a resuscitation model].

Authors:  H Genzwürker; A Hundt; T Finteis; K Ellinger
Journal:  Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 0.698

6.  Nitrous oxide diffusion into the cuffs of disposable laryngeal mask airways.

Authors:  P Maino; A Dullenkopf; V Bernet; M Weiss
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 6.955

7.  Difficult tracheal intubation in obstetrics.

Authors:  R S Cormack; J Lehane
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  1984-11       Impact factor: 6.955

8.  Pressures exerted against the cervical vertebrae by the standard and intubating laryngeal mask airways: a randomized, controlled, cross-over study in fresh cadavers.

Authors:  C Keller; J Brimacombe; K Keller
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 5.108

9.  ProSeal versus the Classic laryngeal mask airway for positive pressure ventilation during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  P P Lu; J Brimacombe; C Yang; M Shyr
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 9.166

10.  Elective oral tracheal intubation in cervical spine-injured adults.

Authors:  V S Suderman; E T Crosby; A Lui
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  1991-09       Impact factor: 5.063

View more
  3 in total

1.  [LMA CTrach: initial experiences in patients with difficult-to-manage airways].

Authors:  A Timmermann; S Russo; U Natge; J Heuer; B M Graf
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 1.041

2.  Randomised Comparison of the AMBU AuraOnce Laryngeal Mask and the LMA Unique Laryngeal Mask Airway in Spontaneously Breathing Adults.

Authors:  Daryl Lindsay Williams; James M Zeng; Karl D Alexander; David T Andrews
Journal:  Anesthesiol Res Pract       Date:  2012-02-29

3.  Ambu AuraOnce versus i-gel laryngeal mask airway in infants and children undergoing surgical procedures. A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Abdulrahman M Alzahem; Mansoor Aqil; Tariq A Alzahrani; Ayman H Aljazaeri
Journal:  Saudi Med J       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 1.484

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.