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 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 Park, S.-H. Articles by Kim, J.-H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Park, S.-H. Articles by Kim, J.-H. Related Collections Ambulatory Patient Safety Pediatrics

---

AMBULATORY ANESTHESIOLOGY

The Influence of Head and Neck Position on the Oropharyngeal Leak Pressure and Cuff Position of Three Supraglottic Airway Devices

Sang-Hyun Park, MD^*, Sung-Hee Han, MD, PhD^*, Sang-Hwan Do, MD, PhD^*, Jung-Won Kim, MD, PhD, and Jin-Hee Kim, MD, PhD^*

From the *Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam City, Kyeonggi-do, Korea; and Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Inje University Ilsan Paik Hospital, Goyang City, Kyeonggi-do, Korea.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Jin-Hee Kim, MD, Department of Anesthesiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 166 Gumi-ro, Seongnam City, Kyeonggi-do, 463-802, Korea. Address e-mail to anesing1{at}snu.ac.kr.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: With supraglottic airway devices, such as the laryngeal tube suction (LTS), ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) and Cobra perilaryngeal airway (CobraPLA), oropharyngeal leak pressure or cuff position may vary according to changes in the position of the head and neck. We evaluated oropharyngeal leak pressure and cuff pressure of the PLMA, LTS, and CobraPLA in different head and neck positions.

METHODS: One-hundred-thirty-nine patients (aged 18-70 yr) scheduled for minor surgical procedures were randomly allocated to one of the supraglottic airway devices. Oropharyngeal leak pressure and cuff pressure were evaluated in four head and neck positions: neutral, 45° of flexion, 45° of extension, and 45° of right rotation. Adverse events (i.e., difficulty in ventilation or gastric insufflation) were assessed during the study.

RESULTS: Leak pressures of the PLMA were lowest in the extension (18.5 vs 23.9 and 26.8 cm H₂O of LTS and CobraPLA, respectively; P < 0.001) and in the rotation position (25.0 vs 29.4 and 28.5 cm H₂O of LTS and CobraPLA, respectively; P < 0.005). With the CobraPLA, gastric insufflations occurred before the oropharyngeal leak in 37 of 45 patients. There were ventilatory difficulties in seven patients with LTS after neck flexion, which required tracheal intubation.

CONCLUSIONS: The PLMA showed significantly lower oropharyngeal leak pressures than did the LTS or CobraPLA in the neck extension and rotation positions. Caution is warranted when changing the position of the head and neck when using the Cobra-PLA or LTS as gastric insufflation or ventilatory difficulty may occur.