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 (17) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gaitini, L. Articles by Alfery, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gaitini, L. Articles by Alfery, D.

---

GENERAL ARTICLES

A Comparison Between the PLA Cobra^TM and the Laryngeal Mask Airway Unique^TM During Spontaneous Ventilation: A Randomized Prospective Study

Luis Gaitini, MD^*, Boris Yanovski, MD^*, Mustafa Somri, MD^*, Sonia Vaida, MD^*, Tome Riad, MD^*, and David Alfery, MD

*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 I–II 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:

				W. J. Jeon, K. H. Kim, J. K. Suh, and S. Y. Cho The Use of Remifentanil to Facilitate the Insertion of the Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway Anesth. Analg., May 1, 2009; 108(5): 1505 - 1509. [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]