JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

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 ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (11) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Brimacombe, J. Articles by Brimacombe, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Brimacombe, J. Articles by Brimacombe, M. Related Collections Equipment Airway

---

GENERAL ARTICLES

The Laryngeal Mask Airway Unique^TM versus the Soft Seal^TM Laryngeal Mask: A Randomized, Crossover Study in Paralyzed, Anesthetized Patients

Joseph Brimacombe, MD^*, Achim von Goedecke, MD, Christian Keller, MD, Lawrence Brimacombe, MB ChB^*, and Moira Brimacombe, MB ChB^*

*Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, James Cook University, Cairns Base Hospital, The Esplanade, Australia; and Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Leopold-Franzens University, Innsbruck, Austria

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Joseph Brimacombe, MD, Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Cairns Base Hospital, The Esplanade, Cairns 4870, Australia. Address e-mail to jbrimaco{at}bigpond.net.au

We tested the hypothesis that ease of insertion, oropharyngeal leak pressure, fiberoptic position, ease of ventilation, and mucosal trauma are different for the Soft Seal^TM laryngeal mask airway (SSLM) and the laryngeal mask airway Unique^TM (LMA-U). Ninety paralyzed, anesthetized adult patients (ASA I–II; 18–80 yr old) were studied. Both devices were inserted into each patient in random order. Oropharyngeal leak pressure and fiberoptic position were determined during cuff inflation from 0–40 mL in 10-mL increments and at an intracuff pressure of 60 cm H₂O. Ease of ventilation was determined by controlling ventilation for 10 min at 8 and 12-mL/kg tidal volume and recording hemoglobin oxygen saturation, end-tidal CO₂, leak fraction, peak airway pressure, and the presence or absence of gastric insufflation. Mucosal trauma was determined by examining the first randomized device for the presence of visible and occult blood. Insertion time was shorter (P = 0.0001) and fewer attempts were required (P = 0.005) for the LMA-U. There were no failed uses of either device. Oropharyngeal leak pressures were similar, but fiberoptic position was superior with the LMA-U (P 0.0003). There were no differences in hemoglobin oxygen saturation, end-tidal CO₂, leak fraction, or peak airway pressure at either tidal volume. Gastric insufflation was not detected in either group at either tidal volume. The frequency of visible (P = 0.009) and occult blood (P = 0.0001) was less with the LMA-U. We conclude that the LMA-U is superior to the SSLM in terms of ease of insertion, fiberoptic position, and mucosal trauma, but similar in terms of oropharyngeal leak pressure and ease of ventilation.

IMPLICATIONS: The laryngeal mask airway Unique ^TM is superior to the Soft Seal ^TM laryngeal mask in terms of ease of insertion, fiberoptic position, and mucosal trauma but similar in terms of oropharyngeal leak pressure and ease of ventilation.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. Gaitini and D. Alfery Comparison Between the PLA CobraTM and the Laryngeal Mask Airway UniqueTM: Choice of Laryngeal Mask Airway Unique Size Anesth. Analg., February 1, 2007; 104(2): 458 - 458. [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Al-Shaikh and A.A.J. Van Zundert The Soft Seal Laryngeal Mask Provides Good Ease of Insertion and Clinical Performance Anesth. Analg., July 1, 2005; 101(1): 297 - 298. [Full Text] [PDF]

Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins with the assistance of Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2006 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999