A randomized prospective study comparing the Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway and Laryngeal Mask Airway-Classic during controlled ventilation for gynecological laparoscopy

被引:26
作者
Galvin, Eilish M. [1 ]
van Doorn, Mirjam [1 ]
Blazquez, Juan [1 ]
Ubben, Johannes F. [1 ]
Zijlstra, Freek J. [1 ]
Klein, Jan [1 ]
Verbrugge, Serge J. C. [1 ]
机构
[1] Erasmus Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Anesthesiol, NL-3015 GD Rotterdam, Netherlands
关键词
D O I
10.1213/01.ane.0000246812.21391.d1
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND: An increasing number of noninvasive, supraglottic airway devices are currently available. In this randomized single-blind study, we compared the Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway (CobraPLA) to the [Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA)-Classic] during gynecological laparoscopy. METHODS: Forty patients received either an LMA-Classic or a CobraPLA. Insertion ventilation and removal characteristics were noted, as well as any throat morbidity. RESULTS: Devices were similar for insertion characteristics, adverse events, and throat morbidity. Before pneumoperitoneum, peak airway pressures were 20.3 +/- 4.9 cm H(2)Oin the LMA-Classic group versus 25.5 +/- 7.9 cm H2O in the CobraPLA group, P = 0.01. This difference was maintained during pneumoperitoneum; LMA-Classic (22.8 +/- 6.1 cm H,O) and CobraPLA (28.1 +/- 8.5 cm H2O), P = 0.04. Macroscopic blood occurred only on the CobraPLA, seen on 40% of the devices after removal, P = 0.001. CONCLUSION: During gynecological laparoscopy, the CobraPLA provides similar insertion characteristics, but higher airway sealing pressures than the LMA-Classic. The usefulness of this finding requires further investigation.
引用
收藏
页码:102 / 105
页数:4
相关论文
共 13 条
[1]  
Akça O, 2004, ANESTH ANALG, V99, P272, DOI [10.1213/01.ane.0000117003.60213.e9, 10.1213/01.ANE.0000117003.60213.E9]
[2]   Editorial II: Who is at increased risk of pulmonary aspiration? [J].
Asai, T .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2004, 93 (04) :497-500
[3]   Laryngeal mask airway and the incidence of regurgitation during gynecological laparoscopies [J].
Bapat, PP ;
Verghese, C .
ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 1997, 85 (01) :139-143
[4]   Severe dysphonia after use of a laryngeal mask airway [J].
Cros, AM ;
Pitti, R ;
Conil, C ;
Giraud, D ;
Verhulst, J .
ANESTHESIOLOGY, 1997, 86 (02) :498-500
[5]   A comparison between the PLA Cobra™ and the laryngeal mask airway Unique™ during spontaneous ventilation:: A randomized prospective study [J].
Gaitini, L ;
Yanovski, B ;
Somri, M ;
Vaida, S ;
Riad, T ;
Alfery, D .
ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2006, 102 (02) :631-636
[6]   ProSeal versus the Classic laryngeal mask airway for positive pressure ventilation during laparoscopic cholecystectomy [J].
Lu, PP ;
Brimacombe, J ;
Yang, C ;
Shyr, M .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2002, 88 (06) :824-827
[7]   Cuff filling volumes and pressures in pediatric laryngeal mask airways [J].
Maino, P ;
Dullenkopf, A ;
Keller, C ;
Bernet-Buettiker, V ;
Weiss, M .
PEDIATRIC ANESTHESIA, 2006, 16 (01) :25-30
[8]   Gastric distension and ventilation during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: LMA-Classic vs. tracheal intubation [J].
Maltby, JR ;
Beriault, MT ;
Watson, NC ;
Fick, GH .
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA-JOURNAL CANADIEN D ANESTHESIE, 2000, 47 (07) :622-626
[9]   Standard Laryngeal Mask Airway™ and LMA-ProSeal™ during laparoscopic surgery [J].
Natalini, G ;
Lanza, G ;
Rosano, A ;
Dell'Agnolo, P .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ANESTHESIA, 2003, 15 (06) :428-432
[10]   Comparison of the laryngeal mask (LMA™) and laryngeal tube (LT®) with the new perilaryngeal airway (CobraPLA®) in short surgical procedures [J].
Turan, A ;
Kaya, G ;
Koyuncu, O ;
Karamanlioglu, B ;
Pamukçu, U .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY, 2006, 23 (03) :234-238