| JOURNAL HOME | CME HOME | THIS MONTH | PAST ISSUES | ETOC | COLLECTIONS |
| AUTHORS | REVIEWERS | EDITORIAL BOARD | FEEDBACK | RSS | HELP |
| ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Department of Anesthesiology, *Hospital Torrecardenas, Almería;
Hospital Costa del Sol, Málaga; and
Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol, Barcelona, Spain
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Eduardo Figueredo, MD, Ps. del Palmeral, 4-Edf. Capri, 6-C, 04720 Aguadulce, Almería, Spain. Address e-mail to eduardofigueredo{at}hotmail.com
In this multicenter, randomized study, we compared ease of insertion, postinsertion hemodynamic repercussion, quality of ventilation, and the capacity to achieve a "hands-free" anesthesia delivery between two new devices: the ProSealTM laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) and the Laryngeal Tube® (LT). The incidence of postoperative laryngopharyngeal discomfort was examined after short surgical interventions in spontaneously breathing patients. After induction with fentanyl and propofol, the respective airways were inserted into 70 adult ASA physical status I and II patients (35 patients in each group). First-attempt insertion success rates were more frequent for the PLMA (77% versus 51%; P < 0.05), but success rates were similar (100% versus 97%) after 3 attempts. The anesthesiologists considered that insertion of the PLMA was easier (P < 0.001). Expired tidal volume was larger with the PLMA (404.9 versus 328.4 mL; P < 0.005) and the ability to achieve hands-free ventilation was more frequent with the PLMA (32 versus 21 cases; P < 0.004). Positional maneuvers with the LT to correct ventilation deficiencies were not always completely effective (5 of 13). There were no differences in the incidence of intolerance, sore throat, dysphagia, and/or dysphonia between the two devices. We conclude that the PLMA showed greater ease of insertion and reliability than the LT for use in nonparalyzed anesthetized patients.
IMPLICATIONS: In this prospective, randomized study, we found that the ProSealTM laryngeal mask airway was easier to insert and permitted a better delivery of hands-free anesthesia than the Laryngeal Tube®. The incidence of postoperative laryngopharyngeal discomfort was similar for both devices.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  T. Asai and K. Shingu The laryngeal tube Br. J. Anaesth., December 1, 2005; 95(6): 729 - 736. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. M. Dunn, L. Robbins, N. R. Connelly, and W. H. Rosenblatt The LMA ProSeal TM May Not Be the Best Option for Difficult to Intubate/Ventilate Patients * Response Anesth. Analg., July 1, 2004; 99(1): 310 - 311. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Asai and K. Shingu Time-Related Cuff Pressures of the Laryngeal Tube With and Without the Use of Nitrous Oxide Anesth. Analg., June 1, 2004; 98(6): 1803 - 1806. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. M. Cook, C. McKinstry, R. Hardy, and S. Twigg Randomized crossover comparison of the ProSealTM laryngeal mask airway with the Laryngeal Tube(R) during anaesthesia with controlled ventilation Br. J. Anaesth., November 1, 2003; 91(5): 678 - 683. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Cook, E. Figueredo, and M. Martinez Comparing the ProSealTM Laryngeal Mask Airway with the Laryngeal Tube Airway * Response Anesth. Analg., October 1, 2003; 97(4): 1202 - 1203. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
