This Article 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 HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wilkins, C. J. Articles by Stevens, W. C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Wilkins, C. J. Articles by Stevens, W. C.

Comparison of the Anesthetic Requirement for Tolerance of Laryngeal Mask Airway and Endotracheal Tube

Department of Anesthesiology, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, Oregon

Abstract

We tested the hypothesis that the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) is tolerated at lighter levels of anesthesia than an endotracheal tube (ET). We studied 20 unpremedicated, nonsmoking ASA physical status I or II patients aged 18–40 yr whose surgery lasted >1 h. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive either an ET or LMA. Anesthesia was induced with intravenous propofol and the LMA or ET was inserted. The ET-group patients received 1.5 mg/kg of succinylcholine, preceded by vecuronium (0.015 mg/kg IV). Maintenance of anesthesia was with only isoflurane and approximately 66% N₂O in O₂ by spontaneous ventilation. All gas concentrations were measured by a Raman spectrometer sampling from the breathing circuit end of the LMA or ET. Toward the end of the procedure, the end-tidal N₂O and isoflurane concentrations were allowed to decrease to <3 vol% and 0.8 ± 0.05 vol%, respectively. The end-tidal isoflurane concentration was then decreased in 0.1% ± 0.05% decrements, each stable value being held for 5 min. The patient was observed for signs of reaction to the presence of the LMA or ET. The mean (range) end-tidal isoflurane concentrations for reaction to ET and LMA were 0.55% (0.4–0.7) and 0.35% (0.2–0.51), respectively (P < 0.001). These data confirm the original hypothesis of the study.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Hohlrieder, J. Brimacombe, A. von Goedecke, and C. Keller Postoperative nausea, vomiting, airway morbidity, and analgesic requirements are lower for the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway than the tracheal tube in females undergoing breast and gynaecological surgery Br. J. Anaesth., October 1, 2007; 99(4): 576 - 580. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Natalini, M. E. Franceschetti, M. T. Pantelidi, A. Rosano, G. Lanza, and A. Bernardini Comparison of the standard laryngeal mask airway and the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in obese patients Br. J. Anaesth., March 1, 2003; 90(3): 323 - 326. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]