JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS
AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
A&A International Anesthesia Research Society
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (9)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Miller, D. M.
Right arrow Articles by Light, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Miller, D. M.
Right arrow Articles by Light, D.
Related Collections
Right arrow Critical Care
Right arrow Airway

Anesth Analg 2003;96:1821-1822
© 2003 International Anesthesia Research Society

GENERAL ARTICLES

Storage Capacities of the Laryngeal Mask and Laryngeal Tube Compared and Their Relevance to Aspiration Risk During Positive Pressure Ventilation

Donald M. Miller, MB ChB, FFA(SA), PhD, and Derek Light, HND(MechEng)

Department of Anaesthetics, Guy’s, King’s and St. Thomas’ School of Medicine, King’s College, London

Address correspondence and reprint requests to D. M. Miller, GKT Department of Anesthetics, 2nd Floor, NGH, Guy’s Hospital, London SE1 9RT, UK. Address e-mail to donald.miller{at}kcl.ac.uk

IMPLICATIONS: Supraglottic airways used for positive pressure ventilation run the occasional risk of regurgitated liquid entering the lungs (aspiration). A dynamic model described here shows that the laryngeal tube has a larger liquid storage capacity between the two cuffs than the bowl of the laryngeal mask, with a consequent smaller aspiration risk.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
S. Bercker, W. Schmidbauer, T. Volk, G. Bogusch, H. P. Bubser, M. Hensel, and T. Kerner
A Comparison of Seal in Seven Supraglottic Airway Devices Using a Cadaver Model of Elevated Esophageal Pressure
Anesth. Analg., February 1, 2008; 106(2): 445 - 448.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
C. Hagberg, Y. Bogomolny, C. Gilmore, V. Gibson, M. Kaitner, and S. Khurana
An Evaluation of the Insertion and Function of a New Supraglottic Airway Device, the King LT TM, During Spontaneous Ventilation
Anesth. Analg., February 1, 2006; 102(2): 621 - 625.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
D. M. Miller
A Proposed Classification and Scoring System for Supraglottic Sealing Airways: A Brief Review
Anesth. Analg., November 1, 2004; 99(5): 1553 - 1559.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2003 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999 HighWire Press
Copyright © 2003 by the International Anesthesia Research Society.