| ||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||

*Department of Anesthesiology, Bnai Zion Medical Center Faculty of Medicine, Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel; and
Vanderbilt University Medical Center and Anesthesia Medical Group, Nashville, Tennessee
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Luis Gaitini, MD, Director of the Anesthesiology Department, Senior Lecture of the Faculty of Medicine, Techion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. Address e-mail to luis.gaitini{at}b-zion.org.il.
The Laryngeal Mask (LMA) Unique and the Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway (PLA) are single-use supraglottic devices. There are no published studies comparing these devices during spontaneous ventilation. We compared the LMA Unique and the Cobra PLA with respect to 1) ventilatory variables during spontaneous ventilation, 2) time to achieve an effective airway, 3) airway intervention requirements, 4) cuff seal pressures, 5) fiberoptic score, and 6) perioperative adverse events. Eighty adult ASA physical status III patients undergoing general anesthesia for minor routine surgery were randomly allocated to LMA Unique or PLA Cobra for airway management. No statistically significant differences were found between the devices with respect to inspiratory tidal volume, expiratory tidal volume, end-tidal CO2 concentration, respiratory rate, number and type of airway interventions required with placement, the fiberoptic score, and the incidence of perioperative adverse events. The oropharyngeal leak (seal) pressure was higher for the CobraPLA (27 ± 7 versus 21 ± 4 cm H2O; P < 0.001). The oxygen saturation was higher (98.1% ± 1% versus 97.3% ± 2%; P = 0.02) in the LMA group. Time of insertion was shorter for LMA (23.7 ± 2 s versus 26.6 ± 7 s; P = 0.02) and insertion difficulty was less for LMA (P = 0.03). As these differences were not judged to be clinically important, both devices appear to be effective in establishing an adequate airway in patients who are spontaneously breathing under general anesthesia.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
H. Hooshangi and D. T. Wong Brief Review: The Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway (CobraPLA(R)) and the Streamlined Liner of Pharyngeal Airway (SLIPATM) supraglottic airways: [Article de synthese court : Les dispositifs supraglottiques Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway (CobraPLA(R)) et Streamlined Liner of Pharyngeal Airway (SLIPATM)] Can J Anesth, March 1, 2008; 55(3): 177 - 185. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. M. Galvin Is the Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway (CobraPLATM) Appropriate for Use in Patients Undergoing Gynecological Laparoscopy? Anesth. Analg., August 1, 2007; 105(2): 546 - 547. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L. Gaitini and D. Alfery Comparison Between the PLA CobraTM and the Laryngeal Mask Airway UniqueTM: Choice of Laryngeal Mask Airway Unique Size Anesth. Analg., February 1, 2007; 104(2): 458 - 458. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Timmermann and T. A. Crozier Comparison Between the PLA CobraTM and the Laryngeal Mask Airway UniqueTM: Choice of Laryngeal Mask Airway Unique Size Anesth. Analg., February 1, 2007; 104(2): 457 - 458. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. M. Galvin, M. van Doorn, J. Blazquez, J. F. Ubben, F. J. Zijlstra, J. Klein, and S. J. C. Verbrugge A Randomized Prospective Study Comparing the Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway and Laryngeal Mask Airway-Classic During Controlled Ventilation for Gynecological Laparoscopy Anesth. Analg., January 1, 2007; 104(1): 102 - 105. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
|