Abstract:We tested the hypothesis that ease of insertion, oropharyngeal leak pressure, fiberoptic position, ease of ventilation, and mucosal trauma are different for the Soft Seal laryngeal mask airway (SSLM) and the laryngeal mask airway Unique (LMA-U). Ninety paralyzed, anesthetized adult patients (ASA I-II; 18-80 yr old) were studied. Both devices were inserted into each patient in random order. Oropharyngeal leak pressure and fiberoptic position were determined during cuff inflation from 0-40 mL in 10-mL increments… Show more
“…Our study found no correlation between the fibreoptic position and the functioning of these devices. This has also been demonstrated in other studies [13,14]. The absence of the aperture bars has not been found to influence the fibreoptic position; instead it may allow easier passage of instruments through the device into the respiratory tract and hence facilitate passage of a fibreoptic endoscope [5].…”
SummaryWe compared the performance of the Ambu Ò AuraOnce TM Laryngeal Mask with that of the LMA Classic TM laryngeal mask airway during controlled anaesthesia. Forty patients requiring intermittent positive pressure ventilation were studied using a randomised crossover design. The mean (SD) oropharyngeal leak pressure for the Ambu device (19 (7.5) cmH 2 O) was significantly greater than for the LMA Classic (15 (5.2) cmH 2 O; p ¼ 0.004), and the number of attempts for successful insertions was significantly less (39 (50%) vs 45 (56%), respectively; p ¼ 0.02). There was one failure to obtain a patent airway with the Ambu Laryngeal Mask and none with the LMA Classic. Insertion of the Ambu Laryngeal Mask required more manipulations to achieve a patent airway than did the LMA Classic (6 (15%) vs 1 (2.5%), respectively; p ¼ 0.045), but the time taken for insertion was similar between the two groups. The incidence of trauma, grade of fibreoptic view, peak airway pressure and quality of ventilation during maintenance of anaesthesia were similar in both groups.
“…Our study found no correlation between the fibreoptic position and the functioning of these devices. This has also been demonstrated in other studies [13,14]. The absence of the aperture bars has not been found to influence the fibreoptic position; instead it may allow easier passage of instruments through the device into the respiratory tract and hence facilitate passage of a fibreoptic endoscope [5].…”
SummaryWe compared the performance of the Ambu Ò AuraOnce TM Laryngeal Mask with that of the LMA Classic TM laryngeal mask airway during controlled anaesthesia. Forty patients requiring intermittent positive pressure ventilation were studied using a randomised crossover design. The mean (SD) oropharyngeal leak pressure for the Ambu device (19 (7.5) cmH 2 O) was significantly greater than for the LMA Classic (15 (5.2) cmH 2 O; p ¼ 0.004), and the number of attempts for successful insertions was significantly less (39 (50%) vs 45 (56%), respectively; p ¼ 0.02). There was one failure to obtain a patent airway with the Ambu Laryngeal Mask and none with the LMA Classic. Insertion of the Ambu Laryngeal Mask required more manipulations to achieve a patent airway than did the LMA Classic (6 (15%) vs 1 (2.5%), respectively; p ¼ 0.045), but the time taken for insertion was similar between the two groups. The incidence of trauma, grade of fibreoptic view, peak airway pressure and quality of ventilation during maintenance of anaesthesia were similar in both groups.
“…The thumb was used as a guide, squeezing the tube of the mask against the palate while introducing it with the other hand. In this case, the contamination of the surgical field was avoided and the insertion was successful in the first attempt, although it is considered more difficult than the cephalic approach 15,16 . The use of the "awake-asleep-awake" anesthetic technique with continuous infusion of remifentanil and propofol provided hemodynamic stability, complete awakening in a short time, and the patient remained cooperative for the aphasia test.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Usou-se o dedo polegar como guia, comprimindo o tubo da máscara laríngea contra o palato, enquanto realizava-se a sua progressão com a outra mão. Nesse caso, evitou-se a contaminação do campo cirúrgico e a inserção foi bem-sucedida na primeira tentativa, embora seja considerada mais difícil do que a abordagem cefálica 15,16 . O uso da técnica "dormindo-acordado-dormindo", com infusão contínua de remifentanil e propofol nesse caso, propor-…”
“…No prior data were available regarding success rates for insertion of either device. Brimacombe et al reported the first-time success rate for insertion of the Portex Soft Seal TM Laryngeal Mask to be 80% and that of the LMA Unique Ò to be 89% [17] (both examples …”
SummaryWe compared insertion rates of single-use polyvinyl chloride laryngeal mask airways (LMAs) vs single-use silicone LMAs in 72 anaesthetised patients. Both airways were produced by Flexicare Medical. Laryngeal mask airway insertion was successful on the first attempt in 68 ⁄ 72 (94%) polyvinyl chloride LMAs vs 64 ⁄ 72 (89%) silicone LMAs (p = 0.39). Overall insertion rates were 72 ⁄ 72 (100%) for the polyvinyl chloride LMAs and 71 ⁄ 72 (99%) for the silicone LMAs (p = 1.0). Mean (SD) insertion times were similar for polyvinyl chloride and silicone LMAs: 24.3 (5.1)s vs 24.8 (7.8)s (p = 0.64). Laryngeal mask airway position, as assessed using a fibrescope, was not different (p = 0.077). The median (IQR [range]) leak pressure was 16 (12-20 [6-30]) cmH 2 O for the polyvinyl LMA and 18 (13-22 [6-30]) cmH 2 O or the silicone LMA (p = 0.037). In conclusion, we did not find any important differences between polyvinyl chloride and silicone laryngeal mask airways.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.