BACKGROUND: We prospectively assessed the performance of the laryngeal tube suction mark II (LTS II). METHODS: LTS II was assessed during controlled and spontaneous ventilation during total i.v. anaesthesia. Ventilation adequacy, functional and anatomical positioning and airway seal were evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred healthy patients (30F:70M) aged 18-85-yr-old were studied. Insertion of the LTS II was successful in 71 at first attempt, in 24 at second attempt and in five at third/fourth attempt. Median insertion time was 15 s (range 5-120 s). Temporary obstruction occurred in six patients. A median of one manipulation per patient was required to establish an airway (range 0-5). During maintenance, temporary airway obstruction occurred in eight patients. Use of the device was abandoned once during insertion, once during maintenance and once because of complications unrelated to the study. The airway was clear in 89 of 97 patients during maintenance and partially obstructed in eight. Median seal pressure was 29.5 (range 15-85) cm H2O. A gastric tube was passed via the posterior channel in 97 of 99 patients. The glottis was visible using a fibrescope passed via the device in 51% of patients. Via the drain tube the upper oesophagus was visible in 22% and this was open in 50%. Blood was visible on the device after removal in 12 patients. After the operation 14 patients reported mild sore throat. DISCUSSION: The LTS II appears to be an improvement on its predecessor and merits further investigation comparing it with its competitors during use for anaesthesia and emergency airway management.
BACKGROUND: We prospectively assessed the performance of the laryngeal tube suction mark II (LTS II). METHODS: LTS II was assessed during controlled and spontaneous ventilation during total i.v. anaesthesia. Ventilation adequacy, functional and anatomical positioning and airway seal were evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred healthy patients (30F:70M) aged 18-85-yr-old were studied. Insertion of the LTS II was successful in 71 at first attempt, in 24 at second attempt and in five at third/fourth attempt. Median insertion time was 15 s (range 5-120 s). Temporary obstruction occurred in six patients. A median of one manipulation per patient was required to establish an airway (range 0-5). During maintenance, temporary airway obstruction occurred in eight patients. Use of the device was abandoned once during insertion, once during maintenance and once because of complications unrelated to the study. The airway was clear in 89 of 97 patients during maintenance and partially obstructed in eight. Median seal pressure was 29.5 (range 15-85) cm H2O. A gastric tube was passed via the posterior channel in 97 of 99 patients. The glottis was visible using a fibrescope passed via the device in 51% of patients. Via the drain tube the upper oesophagus was visible in 22% and this was open in 50%. Blood was visible on the device after removal in 12 patients. After the operation 14 patients reported mild sore throat. DISCUSSION: The LTS II appears to be an improvement on its predecessor and merits further investigation comparing it with its competitors during use for anaesthesia and emergency airway management.
Authors: Sebastian G Russo; Stephan Cremer; Tamara Galli; Christoph Eich; Anselm Bräuer; Thomas A Crozier; Martin Bauer; Micha Strack Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2012-08-07 Impact factor: 2.217
Authors: Michael Bernhard; André Gries; Alexandra Ramshorn-Zimmer; Volker Wenzel; Bjoern Hossfeld Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2016-08-24 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Ulku Ozgul; Zekine Begec; Kalender Karahan; Mehmet Ali Erdogan; Mustafa Said Aydogan; Cemil Colak; Mahmut Durmus; M Ozcan Ersoy Journal: Curr Ther Res Clin Exp Date: 2013-12
Authors: C Frerk; V S Mitchell; A F McNarry; C Mendonca; R Bhagrath; A Patel; E P O'Sullivan; N M Woodall; I Ahmad Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2015-11-10 Impact factor: 9.166