Water flow between the upper esophagus and pharynx for the LMA and COPA in fresh cadavers

被引:10
作者
Brimacombe, J
Keller, C
机构
[1] Cairns Base Hosp, Dept Anaesthesia & Intens Care, Cairns 4870, Australia
[2] Leopold Franzens Univ, Dept Anaesthesia & Intens Care Med, Innsbruck, Austria
来源
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA-JOURNAL CANADIEN D ANESTHESIE | 1999年 / 46卷 / 11期
关键词
Laryngeal Mask Airway; Esophageal Pressure; Airway Device; Fresh Cadaver; Cuff Volume;
D O I
10.1007/BF03013203
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Purpose: In this randomised, crossover cadaver study, we determine the esophageal pressure (EP) at which water flow occurs be tween the upper esophagus and pharynx for the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) and cuffed oropharyngeal airway (COPA). Methods: Ten male and ten female cadavers were studied, The infusion set of a pressure controlled, continuous flow pump was inserted into the upper esophagus and ligated into place. The EP was increased in 2 cm H2O increments. This was performed without an airway device (controls) and over a range of cuff volumes for the LMA (0-40 ml) and COPA (0-60 ml). Regurgitation pressure (RP) was the EP at which fluid was first seen with a fibreoptic scope in the hypopharynx (controls) and above or below the cuff (LMA and COPA). Results: The RP was higher for the LMA than for the COPA and controls (P < 0.0004), and RP was similar for COPA and controls. There was an increase in RP with increasing cuff volume for the LMA from 0 to 10 ml (P < 0.0001). There were no increases in RP with increasing cuff volume for the COPA, The EP at which fluid leaked above and below the cuff was similar for the LMA at all cuff volumes, The EP at which fluid leaked above the cuff was higher than below the cuff for the COPA when the cuff volume was 40 ml (P < 0.0001), Conclusion: In fresh cadavers, the LMA provides better airway protection from fluid in the upper esophagus than the COPA.
引用
收藏
页码:1064 / 1066
页数:3
相关论文
共 9 条
[1]   THE ADVANTAGES OF THE LMA OVER THE TRACHEAL TUBE OR FACEMASK - A METAANALYSIS [J].
BRIMACOMBE, J .
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA-JOURNAL CANADIEN D ANESTHESIE, 1995, 42 (11) :1017-1023
[2]   Cricoid pressure [J].
Brimacombe, JR ;
Berry, AM .
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA-JOURNAL CANADIEN D ANESTHESIE, 1997, 44 (04) :414-425
[3]   The influence of the tonsillar gag on efficacy of seal, anatomic position, airway patency, and airway protection with the flexible laryngeal mask airway:: A randomized, cross-over study of fresh adult cadavers [J].
Brimacombe, JR ;
Keller, C ;
Gunkel, AR ;
Pühringer, F .
ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 1999, 89 (01) :181-186
[4]   A randomized controlled trial comparing the cuffed oropharyngeal airway and the laryngeal mask airway in spontaneously breathing anesthetized adults [J].
Greenberg, RS ;
Brimacombe, J ;
Berry, A ;
Gouze, V ;
Piantadosi, S ;
Dake, EM .
ANESTHESIOLOGY, 1998, 88 (04) :970-977
[5]  
GREENBERG RS, 1996, 11 WORLD C AN SYDN, pP1307
[6]   GASTRIC DISTENSION - A MECHANISM FOR POSTPRANDIAL GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX [J].
HOLLOWAY, RH ;
HONGO, M ;
BERGER, K ;
MCCALLUM, RW .
GASTROENTEROLOGY, 1985, 89 (04) :779-784
[7]   Do laryngeal mask airway devices attenuate liquid flow between the esophagus and pharynx?: A randomized, controlled cadaver study [J].
Keller, C ;
Brimacombe, J ;
Rädler, C ;
Pühringer, F .
ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 1999, 88 (04) :904-907
[8]   Mucosal pressures from the cuffed oropharyngeal airway vs the laryngeal mask airway [J].
Keller, C ;
Brimacombe, J .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 1999, 82 (06) :922-924
[9]  
MARCHAND PAUL, 1957, THORAX, V12, P189, DOI 10.1136/thx.12.3.189