Directly measured mucosal pressures produced by the i-gelTM and laryngeal mask airway SupremeTM in paralysed anaesthetised patients

被引:27
作者
Eschertzhuber, S. [1 ]
Brimacombe, J. [2 ]
Kaufmann, M. [1 ]
Keller, C. [3 ]
Tiefenthaler, W. [1 ]
机构
[1] Med Univ Innsbruck, Dept Anesthesia & Intens Care Med, Innsbruck, Austria
[2] Cairns Base Hosp, Dept Anesthesia & Intens Care, Cairns, Qld 4870, Australia
[3] Schulthess Klin, Dept Anesthesia, Zurich, Switzerland
关键词
CUFFED OROPHARYNGEAL AIRWAY; ADULT PATIENTS; LEAK PRESSURE; PROSEAL(TM); ESOPHAGEAL; INSERTION; SUPERIOR; POSITION;
D O I
10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.07024.x
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
The i-gelTM and LMA SupremeTM are extraglottic airway devices with non-inflatable and inflatable cuffs, respectively. We hypothesised that directly measured mucosal pressures would differ between these devices in anesthetised paralysed patients. Thirty patients were randomly allocated to receive one of these two devices. Four pressure sensors were attached to all airway devices used to measure mucosal pressure at the base of the tongue, the distal oropharynx, the hypopharynx and the pyriform fossa. At these four places, median (IQR [range]) i-gel mucosal pressures were 8.0 (2.710.7 [026.7]), 5.0 (2.77 [1.037.3]), 9.3 (2.713.3 [022.7] and 8.0 (2.710.7 [025.3]) cmH2O, respectively, and for the LMA Supreme, these were 5.0 (0.58.0 [033]), 4.0 (1.39.3 [024]), 10.7 (417.3 [026.7]) and 8.0 (010.7 [036]) cmH2O, respectively. Mucosal pressures were low and similar for both devices. The LMA Supreme mucosal pressures were higher in the hypopharynx than in the distal oropharynx (p = 0.04) and base of the tongue (p = 0.011). There were no pressure differences between the locations for the i-gel.
引用
收藏
页码:407 / 410
页数:4
相关论文
共 17 条
[1]   Gum elastic Bongie-guided insetfion of the ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway is superior to the digital and introducer tool techniques [J].
Brimacombe, J ;
Keller, C ;
Judd, DV .
ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2004, 100 (01) :25-29
[2]   Direct measurement of mucosal pressures exerted by cuff and non-cuff portions of tracheal tubes with different cuff volumes and head and neck positions [J].
Brimacombe, J ;
Keller, C ;
Giampalmo, M ;
Sparr, HJ ;
Berry, A .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 1999, 82 (05) :708-711
[3]   Pharyngeal mucosal pressure and perfusion -: A fiberoptic evaluation of the posterior pharynx in anesthetized adult patients with a modified cuffed oropharyngeal airway [J].
Brimacombe, J ;
Keller, C ;
Pühringer, F .
ANESTHESIOLOGY, 1999, 91 (06) :1661-1665
[4]   Laryngeal mask airway size selection in males and females: ease of insertion, oropharyngeal leak pressure, pharyngeal mucosal pressures and anatomical position [J].
Brimacombe, J ;
Keller, C .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 1999, 82 (05) :703-707
[5]   The Laryngeal Mask Airway SupremeTM- a single use laryngeal mask airway with an oesophageal vent. A randomised, cross-over study with the Laryngeal Mask Airway ProSealTM in paralysed, anaesthetised patients [J].
Eschertzhuber, S. ;
Brimacombe, J. ;
Hohlrieder, M. ;
Keller, C. .
ANAESTHESIA, 2009, 64 (01) :79-83
[6]  
García-Aguado R, 2006, CAN J ANAESTH, V53, P398, DOI 10.1007/BF03022507
[7]   Measurement of tracheal wall pressure: a comparison of three different in vitro techniques [J].
Horisberger, T. ;
Gerber, S. ;
Bernet, V. ;
Weiss, M. .
ANAESTHESIA, 2008, 63 (04) :418-422
[8]   A randomised crossover trial comparing the i-gel supraglottic airway and classic laryngeal mask airway [J].
Janakiraman, C. ;
Chethan, D. B. ;
Wilkes, A. R. ;
Stacey, M. R. ;
Goodwin, N. .
ANAESTHESIA, 2009, 64 (06) :674-678
[9]   Mucosal pressure and oropharyngeal leak pressure with the ProSeal versus laryngeal mask airway in anaesthetized paralysed patients [J].
Keller, C ;
Brimacombe, J .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2000, 85 (02) :262-266
[10]   Comparison of four methods for assessing airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in adult patients [J].
Keller, C ;
Brimacombe, JR ;
Keller, K ;
Morris, R .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 1999, 82 (02) :286-287