This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (13) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Goldmann, K. Articles by Wulf, H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Goldmann, K. Articles by Wulf, H.

---

PEDIATRIC ANESTHESIA

The Size 1 ProSeal^TM Laryngeal Mask Airway in Infants: A Randomized, Crossover Investigation with the Classic^TM Laryngeal Mask Airway

Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Therapy, Philipps University Marburg, Germany

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Kai Goldmann, MD, DEAA, Attending Anesthesiologist, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Therapy, Philipps University Marburg, 35033 Marburg, Germany. Address e-mail to Kaigoldmann1{at}aol.com.

Many problems with the Classic^TM laryngeal mask airway (CLMA) in infants are believed to be related to its inadequate cuff design. One of the main limitations of the CLMA is that the resulting low-pressure seal can be inadequate for positive pressure ventilation (PPV). The ProSeal^TM LMA (PLMA), a new laryngeal mask airway with a modified cuff, has been shown to form a more effective seal than the CLMA in children. The first infant size PLMA, size 1, became available recently. We studied 30 anesthetized, nonparalyzed infants aged 15 mo (2–30 mo) and weighing 9 kg (5–12 kg). The CLMA and PLMA were inserted in random order into each patient. Airway leak pressure and maximum tidal volume were measured. Ease of insertion, quality of initial airway, and fiberoptic position were also determined. Gastric tube placement was assessed for the PLMA. The mean airway leak pressure in neutral head position (26.7 versus 18.9 cm H₂O), maximum flexion (35.6 versus 28.2 cm H₂O), and the mean maximum tidal volume (312 versus 260 mL) were significantly higher for the PLMA (P < 0.01). Air entered the stomach in eight patients with the CLMA but did not with the PLMA. Gastric tube placement was possible in all but one patient. In three patients, the use of the PLMA led to some degree of clinically relevant compression of the larynx. The size 1 PLMA seems to be a more suitable device for airway maintenance in infants than the same size CLMA. The ability to insert a gastric tube at the same time, and a significantly higher airway leak pressure than with the CLMA, may have important implications for its use for PPV in infants.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Micaglio, R. Bonato, M. De Nardin, M. Parotto, D. Trevisanuto, V. Zanardo, N. Doglioni, and C. Ori Prospective, randomized comparison of ProSealTM and ClassicTM laryngeal mask airways in anaesthetized neonates and infants Br. J. Anaesth., August 1, 2009; 103(2): 263 - 267. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Patel and R. Bingham Laryngeal mask airway and other supraglottic airway devices in paediatric practice CEACCP, February 1, 2009; 9(1): 6 - 9. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Micaglio, M. Parotto, D. Trevisanuto, and V. Zanardo Size 1 ProSealTM Laryngeal Mask Airway in Neonates Anesth. Analg., October 1, 2006; 103(4): 1044 - 1045. [Full Text] [PDF]