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 Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Goldmann, K. Articles by Freisburger, C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Goldmann, K. Articles by Freisburger, C.

---

AMBULATORY ANESTHESIOLOGY

Use of ProSeal^TM Laryngeal Mask Airway in 2114 Adult Patients: A Prospective Study

Kai Goldmann, MD, PhD, DEAA^*, Carolin Hechtfischer^*, Amena Malik^*, Andrea Kussin, MD^*, and Christian Freisburger, MD^*

From the *Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Therapy, Philipps University Marburg, Germany; Department of Anaesthesia, Dubai Hospital, Dubai Health Authority, UAE.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Kai Goldmann, MD, PhD, DEAA, Department Anaesthesia, Dubai Hospital, Dubai Health Authority, PO Box 7272, Dubai, UAE. Address e-mail to kgoldmann{at}dohms.gov.ae.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There have been numerous studies published on the ProSeal^TM laryngeal mask airway (PLMA). However, few have investigated its utility in a large practice setting. We sought to gather comprehensive data about the characteristics, efficacy, and safety of its use by a representative group of anesthesiologists working at a teaching center.

METHODS: Information was collected on a standardized data collection form. Clinical information obtained included user characteristics, patient characteristics, type and duration of operation, details of airway management and anesthetic technique, details of adverse events, and postoperative status of the patient.

RESULTS: Use of the PLMA was documented in 2114 patients by 81 anesthesiologists (57% trainee, 43% staff grade). The insertion success rate was 99% within a maximum of 3 attempts. Mean airway leak pressure was 28 (11–40) cm H₂O. In 3.2% of cases, the PLMA was abandoned in favor of the endotracheal tube. Ventilation was controlled in 98%. Clinically "relevant" adverse events were recorded in 3.3% of all cases, of which 0.6% were classified as "serious." No long-term adverse sequelae resulted. No signs of aspiration were found in 12 patients with apparent regurgitation of gastric fluid through the drain tube of the PLMA. Five cases of difficult ventilation and 16 cases of difficult endotracheal intubation were successfully managed by the use of the PLMA.

CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that airway management using the PLMA is safe and effective in a general practice setting. The results support the assumption that a correctly positioned PLMA can protect from pulmonary aspiration of regurgitate gastric fluid. The data also support use of the PLMA for the management of the difficult airway.