Literature DB >> 9661564

A comparison of the laryngeal mask airway and cuffed oropharyngeal airway in anesthetized adult patients.

J R Brimacombe1, J C Brimacombe, A M Berry, R Morris, D Mecklem, G Clarke, J Barry, T Kirk.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: We compared the cuffed oropharyngeal airway (COPA) with the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) in 120 anesthetized adult patients. We compared 1) placement success rates, 2) airway interventional requirements, 3) airway stability in different head/neck positions, 4) cardiorespiratory tolerance, and 5) intra- and postoperative adverse events/symptoms. A standardized anesthesia protocol was followed by four anesthesiologists experienced with both devices. Observational data were validated by independent analysis of continuous video recordings. Postoperative interviews were double-blind to the device used. The LMA had a more frequent success rate than COPA (97% vs 55%, P < 0.00001), an overall higher success rate (100% vs 83%; P = 0.001), a shorter time to achieve an effective airway (49 vs 188 s; P < 0.00001), a higher oropharyngeal leak pressure (21 vs 16 cm H2O; P = 0.003), and a fewer number of chin lift airway interventions required (0.1% vs 42%; P < 0.00001). When comparing mean tidal volumes in different head/neck positions to assess airway stability, the quality of airway was unchanged in 98% patients with the LMA and 54% with the COPA (P < 0.00001). The incidences of intraoperative adverse events were similar. On removal, blood was detected more often on the COPA (3% vs 14%; P = 0.04). In the late postoperative period, more patients complained of adverse symptoms with the COPA than with the LMA (26% vs 57%; P = 0.001). Late postoperative symptoms occurred more frequently with the COPA (0.87 vs 0.34; P = 0.003). There was more late postoperative sore throat (14% vs 36%; P = 0.0003) and more jaw/neck pain (12% vs 26%; P = 0.0008) in patients managed with the COPA. This study demonstrates that the LMA offers advantages over the COPA in most technical aspects of airway management and in terms of postoperative morbidity. IMPLICATIONS: In this randomized, prospective study, we compared the laryngeal mask airway and the cuffed oropharyngeal airway in anesthetized patients. The laryngeal mask airway offers advantages in most technical aspects of airway management and in terms of postoperative morbidity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9661564     DOI: 10.1097/00000539-199807000-00031

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


  5 in total

1.  The air-Q(®) intubating laryngeal airway vs the LMA-ProSeal(TM) : a prospective, randomised trial of airway seal pressure.

Authors:  R E Galgon; K M Schroeder; S Han; A Andrei; A M Joffe
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2011-08-22       Impact factor: 6.955

2.  A preliminary study of I-gel: a new supraglottic airway device.

Authors:  Ashish Kannaujia; Uma Srivastava; Namita Saraswat; Abhijeet Mishra; Aditya Kumar; Surekha Saxena
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2009-02

3.  Comparison of the effects of room air and N2O + O2 used for ProSeal LMA cuff inflation on cuff pressure and oropharyngeal structure.

Authors:  Murat Tekin; Ismail Kati; Yakup Tomak; Koksal Yuca
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2008-11-15       Impact factor: 2.078

4.  Comparing the effectiveness of airway management devices in pre-hospital emergency care: A randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Shahla Khosravan; Ali Alami; Arash Hamzei; Jalal Borna
Journal:  Pak J Med Sci       Date:  2015 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.088

5.  Influence of Head and Neck Position on Oropharyngeal Leak Pressure and Cuff Position with the ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway and the I-Gel: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

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
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.