Comparison of the flexible and standard laryngeal mask airways

被引:22
作者
Brimacombe, J [1 ]
Keller, C
机构
[1] Leopold Franzens Univ, Dept Anaesthesia & Intens Care Med, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria
[2] Cairns Base Hosp, Dept Anaesthesia & Intens Care, Cairns 4870, Australia
来源
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA-JOURNAL CANADIEN D ANESTHESIE | 1999年 / 46卷 / 06期
关键词
D O I
10.1007/BF03013546
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Purpose: To determine mucosal pressures, ease of insertion, mask position and oropharyngeal leak pressures for the flexible (FLMA)and standard laryngeal mask airway (LMA). Methods: Forty anesthetized, paralysed adult patients were randomly allocated to receiver either the FLMA or LMA. Microchip sensors were attached to the LMA or FLMA at identical locations corresponding to the base of tongue, hypopharynx, lateral pharynx, oropharynx, posterior pharynx and pyriform fossa. Mucosal pressure. oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) and mask position (assessed fibre optically) were recorded during inflation of the cuff from 0-40 ml in 10 ml increments. Results: Ease of insertion and mask position were similar between devices. Mean OLP was higher for the LMA (22 vs 19 cm H2O), but the maximum OLP was similar (25 vs 24 cm H2O). Mean mucosal pressures were generally low (< 12 cm H2O)for both devices, but were higher for the LMA in the lateral pharynx (4 vs 1 cm H2O) and oropharynx (13 vs 3 cm H2O) and higher in the posterior pharynx for the FLMA(4 vs 2 cm H2O). The OLP for both devices: increased with increasing intracuff volume from 0-10 ml and 10-20 ml, and from 20-30 ml for the FLMA. Conclusions: We conclude that the LMA and FLMA perform similarly in term of ease of insertion and mask position, but OLP and mucosal pressure are slightly higher for the LMA. Pharyngeal mucosal pressures for both devices are lower than those considered safe for the tracheal mucosa. The overall clinical performance between the two devices is similar.
引用
收藏
页码:558 / 563
页数:6
相关论文
共 20 条
[1]   A MODIFIED INTAVENT LARYNGEAL MASK FOR ENT AND DENTAL-ANESTHESIA [J].
ALEXANDER, CA .
ANAESTHESIA, 1990, 45 (10) :892-893
[2]   RESISTANCE TO CONSTANT AIR-FLOW IMPOSED BY THE STANDARD LARYNGEAL MASK, THE REINFORCED LARYNGEAL MASK AND RAE TRACHEAL TUBES [J].
ALHASANI, A .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 1993, 71 (04) :594-596
[3]   An evaluation of the factors influencing selection of the optimal size of laryngeal mask airway in normal adults [J].
Berry, AM ;
Brimacombe, JR ;
McManus, KF ;
Goldblatt, M .
ANAESTHESIA, 1998, 53 (06) :565-570
[4]   A comparison of the disposable versus the reusable laryngeal mask airway in paralyzed adult patients [J].
Brimacombe, J ;
Keller, C ;
Morris, R ;
Mecklem, D .
ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 1998, 87 (04) :921-924
[5]  
BRIMACOMBE J, 1993, ANESTH ANALG, V76, P457
[6]   A comparison of pharyngeal mucosal pressure and airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized adult patients [J].
Brimacombe, J ;
Keller, C .
ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 1998, 87 (06) :1379-1382
[7]   The effect of introducing fibreoptic bronchoscopes on gas flow in laryngeal masks and tracheal tubes [J].
Brimacombe, J ;
DunbarReid, K .
ANAESTHESIA, 1996, 51 (10) :923-928
[8]  
Brimacombe J, 1996, LARYNGEAL MASK AIRWA, V3rd
[9]  
BRIMACOMBE J, 1999, BR J ANAESTH
[10]   A prospective evaluation of clinical tests for placement of laryngeal mask airways [J].
Joshi, S ;
Sciacca, RR ;
Solanki, DR ;
Young, WL ;
Mathru, MM .
ANESTHESIOLOGY, 1998, 89 (05) :1141-1146