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]


     

Anesth Analg 2008; 107:1523-1530
© 2008 International Anesthesia Research Society
doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e3181852617
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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 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 (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Szmuk, P.
Right arrow Articles by Sessler, D. I.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Szmuk, P.
Right arrow Articles by Sessler, D. I.
Related Collections
Right arrow Airway
Right arrow Pediatrics

PEDIATRIC ANESTHESIOLOGY

A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway and Laryngeal Mask Airway Unique in Pediatric Patients

Peter Szmuk, MD*¶, Oscar Ghelber, MD{dagger}, Maria Matuszczak, MD{dagger}, Marry F. Rabb, MD{dagger}, Tiberiu Ezri, MD{ddagger}, and Daniel I. Sessler, MD§

From the *Department of Anesthesiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School and Children’s Medical Center at Dallas, Texas; {dagger}Department of Anesthesiology, University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Texas; {ddagger}Department of Anesthesia, Wolfson Medical Center, Holon, Affiliated to Tel Aviv University, Israel; and §Department of Outcomes Research, The Cleveland Clinic, Ohio; ¶Member Outcomes Research Consortium.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Peter Szmuk, MD, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School and Children’s Medical Center at Dallas, 1935, B3304, Motor St., Dallas, TX 75235. Address e-mail to peter.szmuk{at}utsouthwestern.edu.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway (PLA) provides better sealing pressure than the Laryngeal Mask Airway Unique (LMAU) during positive-pressure ventilation in adults. We compared the performance of the CobraPLA and LMAU in infants and children.

METHODS: Two-hundred pediatric patients were randomly assigned to a CobraPLA or an Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA). We measured airway sealing at cuff inflation pressures of 40 and 60 cm H2O; ease and time of insertion; device stability; efficacy of ventilation; number of insertion attempts; incidence of postoperative sore throat, dysphonia, laryngospasm, bronchospasm, and gastric gas insufflation. Steady-state end-tidalCO2 was measured at the head of the CobraPLA and at the "Y-piece" piece of the anesthetic circuit. For the major outcomes, the airway groups were subdivided post hoc into small and large CobraPLA and small and large LMA subgroups. Results are presented as means ± sds; P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS: Airway sealing pressure with the cuff inflated to 60 cm H2O in the large CobraPLA subgroup (22 ± 7 cm H2O) was significantly more than that of the small CobraPLA subgroup (18 ± 5 cm H2O) and large LMA subgroup (16 ± 5 cm H2O; P < 0.001). The CobraPLA was more stable than the LMA (same anatomic fit score before and after surgery) and produced less gastric insufflation. Head CobraPLA end-tidalCO2 values were 6.4 ± 6 mm Hg more than those of the Y piece of the circle circuit.

CONCLUSIONS: The CobraPLA airway performed as well as the LMAU during anesthesia in pediatric patients for a large range of outcomes and was superior for some.

Since its introduction into anesthesia practice in 1988, the Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA, The Laryngeal Mask Company Limited, Henley-on-Thames, UK) has been used in 150 million cases worldwide and has proved to be safe and effective in both adult and pediatric patients.1 Nevertheless, more than one insertion attempt is required in 5% to 10% of all cases2; furthermore, the LMA does not provide a reliable airtight seal around the larynx, and pressures of 15 to 20 cm H2O usually cause gas leakage.3 Consequently, the device often functions poorly during positive-pressure ventilation.

Despite these minor problems, the LMA is currently used in many surgical patients, including those undergoing nonconventional surgeries (laparotomies or laparoscopies)2,4 and is part of the ASA difficult airway algorithm.5

The Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway (CobraPLA)(Engineered Medical Systems, Indianapolis, IN) was introduced into clinical practice in 2003 as a disposable extraglottic airway device. In adults, insertion time and performance characteristics were similar to the LMA, while airway-sealing pressures were greater: 23 ± 6 cm H2O vs 18 ± 5 cm H2O.6

Several reports have shown the usefulness of the CobraPLA in pediatric patients7–10; however, the device has yet to be fully evaluated in infants and children. Our goal was thus to evaluate the use of CobraPLA in routine clinical practice in pediatric patients and compare its performance with the Laryngeal Mask Airway Unique (LMAU). Our primary outcome was the airway sealing pressure; secondary outcomes were ease and time for insertion, position and stability of the device, number of insertion attempts, incidence of gastric insufflation and of postoperative complications. Furthermore, in a subset of patients, we used a specially designed CobraPLA with a gas sampling site near the head of the device to test the hypothesis that the end-tidal CO2 (ETco2) and end-tidal sevoflurane (ETsevo) concentrations measured at the "head" of the CobraPLA are greater (and presumably more accurate) than those measured at the "Y- piece" of the anesthetic circuit.

METHODS

With approval of the IRB at the University of Texas Medical School at Houston and written parental consent, 200 pediatric patients, ASA physical status I-II, 0 to 12-yr-old were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, single-blind study. The patients were scheduled for elective orthopedic and urological procedures with an estimated duration of anesthesia under 2 h. Patients with known gastrointestinal reflux, sore throat or upper respiratory airway infection, and with known or suspected difficult airways were excluded from the study.

The CobraPLA comprises a breathing tube with a widened distal end. When the cuff of the CobraPLA is inflated it seals the distal end from the upper airway, thereby allowing positive-pressure ventilation. The distal Cobra head holds both soft tissues and the epiglottis away from the airway opening, thus allowing unimpeded ventilation. (Fig. 1) The CobraPLA is manufactured in eight sizes; four of them (0.5–2) are suitable for pediatric patients.


Figure 113
View larger version (47K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 1. CobraPLA with end tidal CO2 sampling site. CobraPLA features: 15 mm connector (1); CobraPLA head (2); Grill (3); Flexible tip (4); CobraPLA circular cuff (5). CobraPLA with CO2 sampling prototype: end tidal CO2 sampling tube (6) which opens at the head of the device (7).

 

Anesthetic Protocol
All patients older than 10 mo were premedicated with oral midazolam, 0.5 mg/kg up to maximum of 15 mg. General anesthesia was induced with sevoflurane in a mixture of 30/70% O2/N2O through a facemask. An IV catheter was inserted and 1 mg/kg propofol and 1 µg/kg fentanyl were administered.

Both devices were lubricated with a water-based lubricant. Randomization to one of the airway devices (including anatomical fit and ETco2 subgroups) was based on computer-generated codes maintained in sequentially numbered opaque envelopes which were opened just before device insertion. Insertion of the device was attempted when the eyelash reflex had disappeared and the jaw was relaxed at least 60 sec after propofol administration. The LMAU was inserted with a partially inflated cuff. No muscle relaxants were administered before airway insertion.

LMAU and CobraPLA sizes were selected based on manufacturer’s recommendations, modified to avoid overlap of the weight groups. LMAU: Size 1 (≤5 kg), Size 1.5 (6–10 kg); Size 2 (11–20 kg), and Size 2.5 (21–30 kg). CobraPLA: Size 1/2 (2.5–7.5 kg); Size 1 (7.5–15 kg); Size 1.5 (16–30 kg); and Size 2 (31–60 kg). All the investigators had years of experience with use of the LMAU and at least 20 insertions with the CobraPLA.

Failure to properly position an airway was defined by any one of the following: 1) inability to obtain an ETco2 waveform; 2) presence of an audible air leak at 10 cm H2O-peak inspiratory pressure; 3) an expired tidal volume <4 mL/kg; 4) signs of airway obstruction (peak airway pressure >25 cm H2O with low expired tidal volumes); or, 5) an Spo2 <93% with an Fio2 of 100%. If insertion failed, the following algorithm was pursued: (a) two attempts with the randomly assigned airway, (b) insertion of a smaller size study device; (c) a single insertion attempt with the alternative airway device; (d) 0.6 mg/kg IV rocuronium and tracheal intubation. The attending anesthesiologists were free to intubate the patient’s trachea at any time if clinically indicated.

Anesthesia was maintained with 60/40% N2O/O2, fentanyl ({approx}1 µg · kg–1 · h–1), and sevoflurane was needed to maintain the mean arterial blood pressure within 20% of the preinduction value. In longer surgeries (>45 min), the patients’ lungs were mechanically ventilated with a tidal volume of 8 mL/kg at a rate sufficient to maintain ETco2 near 40 mm Hg and then allowed to resume spontaneous ventilation towards the end of the procedure. If the delivered 8 mL/kg tidal volume produced airway pressure in excess of 20 cm H2O, tidal volume was reduced as necessary to maintain lower peak airway pressures. Fresh gas flow was maintained at a constant rate of 3 L/min.

Airway device insertion depth was defined by the distance from the tip of the device to a mark made at the level of the incisors after insertion. After device insertion, the patient’s head was maintained in neutral position by rolls positioned bilaterally. All devices were examined upon removal for gross blood staining. Perioperative complications such as laryngospasm and bronchospasm were recorded both intra and postoperatively.

Measurements
Each device was evaluated by assessing the following variables: positioning, gas leak at 60 and 40 cm H2O cuff pressures, anatomical fit, gastric insufflation, and the degree of pharyngeal irritation. Standard anesthetic safety data were also recorded, including arterial blood pressure, heart rate, oxyhemoglobin saturation, peak airway pressure, and total amount of fentanyl administered.

Time for successful airway insertion was measured by an independent observer beginning when the tip of the device was at the level of the incisors and ending after all the following were completed: the cuff was inflated, the breathing circuit was connected to the airway, an ETco2trace was detected, a tidal volume of more than 4 mL/kg body weight was measured, and no air leak was detected at a peak inspiratory positive airway pressure ventilation of 15 cm H2O. The number of attempts, the initial airway size and the size ultimately used were recorded. Once the device was optimally positioned, it was taped and its position was not altered unless clinically necessary.

Ease of Insertion
Ease of airway insertion was evaluated qualitatively, using the following scale: 1) smooth insertion without any need for adjustment; 2) need for at least one adjustment maneuver, and 3) more than one adjustment maneuver required to obtain adequate positioning.

Airway sealing pressure was measured by closing the expiratory valve of the circle system at 3 L/min gas flow and recording the airway pressure at which the dial on the aneroid manometer reached equilibrium.11 Assessment of airway sealing pressure was initially performed with the device’s cuff inflated to 60 cm H2O followed immediately by measurement at 40 cm H2O. Subsequently, the cuff was fully deflated, an orogastric tube (OGT) was passed into the stomach to remove any air that entered during the assessment period. The OGT was then removed and the device’s cuff reinflated, monitored with a manometer (Mallinckrodt) and maintained at 40 cm H2O throughout the procedure.

In a random subgroup of patients from both groups, a flexible fiberoptic bronchoscope (Olympus BFP 30, O.D. 5.0 mm, Tokyo, Japan) was inserted through the device via a connector with a self-sealing diaphragm up to the mask aperture bars both before and at the end of the surgery. The airway position was scored as follows12: 4 = only vocal cords visible; 3 = vocal cords plus posterior epiglottis visible; 2 = vocal cords plus anterior epiglottis visible; 1 = vocal cords not fiberoptically visible.

At the end of surgery with the patient deeply anesthetized, the cuff of the device was deflated, an OGT was inserted under direct vision using a tong blade depressor and gas was aspirated from the stomach using a 60-mL syringe.13 The amount of gas aspirated was recorded for each device. The position of the OGT was confirmed by the presence of gastric content at aspiration. If nothing was aspirated, 2 mL of air was injected while listening over the epigastrium to confirm the tube’s position and clear any blockage. These 2 mL of air were then aspirated and omitted from calculations. Difficulties with the OGT insertion, if any, were noted. The oral cavity and part of the pharynx were inspected for blood or trauma before and after the placement of the OGT.

One and 24 h postoperatively, the patient’s parents (blinded to group assignment) were asked to rate the presence of dysphonia (Yes/No). Sore throat was assessed as present or absent (when age and willingness allowed the patients to respond) 1 h postoperatively.

A specially designed CobraPLA prototype with an ETco2 sampling site (Fig. 1) that opened at the head of the device was used in a subset of patients. Once steady-state was reached (10–15 min postinduction) both head and Y-piece ETco2 and ETsevo were recorded every 15 min.

Statistical Analysis
In adults,6 the airway sealing pressures for CobraPLA and LMAU are reported to be 23 ± 6 and 18 ± 5 cm H2O, respectively. In order to have 90% power to detect a difference in airway sealing pressures of 5 cm H2O between the two devices, we needed to study 25 patients per group for each of device size. Consequently, we recruited 200 patients (100 patients/device with 25/size).

Morphometric and anesthetic data were analyzed using Student’s t-test. The numbers of failed device insertions were compared with a Fisher’s exact test. For the major outcomes, the patients in the two groups were subdivided post hoc into four groups: small CobraPLA (CobraPLA sizes 0.5 and 1), small LMAU (LMAU sizes 1 and 1.5), large Cobra PLA (CobraPLA sizes 1.5 and 2), and large LMAU (LMAU sizes 2 and 2.5). Analysis of variance was used for continuous measurements and {chi}2 tests for dichotomous values.

Differences in anatomical fit between the CobraPLA group and LMAU group immediately after induction of anesthesia and before emergence were analyzed using Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. The ET (co2 and sevo) at head and Y-piece were compared with linear regression and Bland Altman statistics. Results are presented as means ± sds; P < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences with regard to morphometric or anesthetic data (Table 1), except that the surgery and, hence anesthesia, lasted longer in the patients who received the CobraPLA: 62 ± 32 vs 50 ± 27 min, P = 0.006. First-attempt device insertion was successful in 95% of patients with a CobraPLA, and in 96% with an LMAU. However, the cumulative insertion success rate increased to 99% for both devices after the second attempt. Four patients in the CobraPLA group and three in the LMAU group required two attempts at insertion. One patient in each group required three attempts at insertion.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Morphometric and Anesthetic Data

 

Major Outcomes
There were no significant differences between the CobraPLA and LMAU groups in the time and ease of insertion or the number of attempts required for successful insertion (Table 1). However, insertion times were significantly shorter with the smaller airway devices in both CobraPLA and LMAU (Table 2).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2. Major Outcomes

 

Anatomical fit was assessed in 33 CobraPLA patients and 30 LMAU patients. The fiberoptic view was significantly better (scores 3–4) in the CobraPLA group than in the LMAU group both immediately after induction and before emergence (P < 0.001). The overall fit was judged worse before emergence than after induction in the LMAU subgroups (scores 1–2) as compared with the CobraPLA subgroups in which there was no change (Table 2). This suggests that CobraPLA was more stable in the airway than the LMAU. The fiberoptic examination revealed no epiglottic down-folding or laryngeal view obstruction in the CobraPLA group, whereas in the LMAU group epiglottic down-folding and laryngeal view obstruction occurred in two patients after induction and in six patients before emergence.

The airway sealing pressure at a cuff inflation pressure of 40 cm H2O in the large CobraPLA subgroup (18 ± 6 cm H2O) was more than that of the small PLA (15 ± 4 cm H2O) and the large LMAU subgroups (15 ± 5 cm H2O, P = 0.003). The airway sealing at a cuff inflation pressure of 60 cm H2O in the large CobraPLA subgroup (22 ± 7 cm H2O) was also significantly more than that of the small PLA subgroup (18 ± 5 cm H2O) and the large LMAU subgroup (16 ± 5 cm H2O; P < 0.001) (Fig. 2). In contrast, at inflation pressures of both 40 and 60 cm H2O, the airway sealing pressures were similar in the small and large LMAU groups. The peak airway pressure at 20 min was significantly smaller in the large LMAU subgroup than in any of the other three subgroups (Table 2).


Figure 213
View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 2. Airway sealing pressures for CobraPLA and LMA Unique subgroups at two cuff inflation pressures. The airway sealing pressure in the large CobraPLA subgroup (Sizes 1.5 and 2) was significantly greater than that in the small CobraPLA subgroup (Sizes 0.5 and 1) and large LMA Unique subgroup (Sizes 2 and 2.5) at inflation pressures of 40 and 60 cm H2O. *P < 0.05.

 

The incidences of complications (laryngospasm, bronchospasm, blood staining on the device, sore throat, and dysphagia) were similar in the four subgroups. The volume of stomach gas aspirated was significantly smaller (P < 0.001) in patients having a CobraPLA (0.6 mL/kg) than in those given a LMAU (1.3 mL/kg). In addition, children in the large LMAU subgroup had a larger stomach gas volume than did children in the other subgroups (Table 2). There was neither difficulty nor apparent trauma with the OGT placement.

In two patients in each device group (one each with the CobraPLA 1 and 1.5, LMAU 1 and 1.5) placement of the device failed due to either laryngospasm or bronchospasm. Three of the patients’ tracheas were intubated after the second attempt at placing the extraglottic device. In one case, the patient’s trachea was intubated only after three failed insertion attempts with the assigned device (LMAU) and an additional failed attempt with a CobraPLA. None of these four patients had any additional complications.

Ventilation
Data for ETco2 and ETsevo were collected from 44 patients with all sizes of the CobraPLA used in the study (size 0.5 n = 10; size 1 n = 11; size 1.5 n = 13; size 2 n = 10). Measurements in an additional six patients were abandoned due to sample line obstruction. The mean (± sd) measurement times were 48 ± 17, 45 ± 12, 38 ± 14, and 57 ± 17 min for CobraPLA sizes 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2, respectively.

Linear regression and the Bland Altman plot for ETco2 are presented in Figures 3 and 4. Linear regression between the measurement sites for ETco2 indicated that the values at the Y-piece site were more than that at the head site (Proximal measurement = 0.8 [head measurement] + 3, r = 0.75). The head values were 6.4 ± 6 cm H2O more than those of the Y-piece site. Linear regression between weight and the ETCO2 differences at the CobraPLA head and the Y-piece peace are presented in Figure 5. We found that substantial differences between ETCO2 concentrations at the Cobra PLA’s head and the circuit Y-piece occurred in children up to at least 30 kg.


Figure 313
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 3. Regression line of ETco2 at the CobraPLA "head" versus standard "Y-piece" sampling sites in mm Hg. "Y-piece" value = 0.83 ("Head" value) + 2.6, r = 0.75.

 

Figure 513
View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 5. Bland Altman plot for ETCO2 differences as a function of patient’s weight.

 


Figure 413
View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 4. The difference between ETco2 at the CobraPLA "head" and measurements at the "Y-piece" of the circle system (bias) versus the average measurement in mm Hg.

 

Linear regression indicated that the sevoflurane concentrations at the Y-piece and head measurement sites were essentially equal (Y-piece measurement = 0.9 [head measurement] + 0.2, r = 0.88). The mean bias was –0.03 ± 0.32.

DISCUSSION

Our results show that the CobraPLA airway performs as well as the LMAU Classic during anesthesia in pediatric patients for a large range of outcomes and out-performed the LMAU for others. We could only partially confirm previous reports in adults that the CobraPLA provides superior sealing pressures to LMAU during controlled ventilation.6,14 Overall, there were no significant differences between the sealing pressures in the two airway groups at 40 or 60 cm H2O; however, subgroup analysis revealed that the sealing pressures in the large CobraPLA subgroups (1.5 and 2) were more than those of the small CobraPLA subgroup (0.5 and 1) and the large LMAU subgroup (2 and 2.5) at both inflation pressures. The lack of an increased sealing pressure in pediatric patients receiving the small CobraPLA sizes might have been the result of a difference in the anatomical shape of the pharynx in infants versus older children and adults. In fact, Arens et al.15 assessed the airway dimensions of children aged 1 to 11 yr by magnetic resonance imaging and found a linear increase in the upper airway dimensions with age. They concluded that soft tissues surrounding the upper airway, including tonsils and adenoids, grow proportionally to the skeletal structures.

Sealing pressures were measured at two different cuff inflation pressures: 40 and 60 cm H2O. In adults 70 cm H2O (range, 51–92) intracuff pressure in a cuffed oropharyngeal airway generated a mucosal pressure of 56 cm H2O (range, 22–87). With increased intracuff pressure, mucosal blood flow decreases progressively until it is abolished at mucosal pressures more than 80 cm H2O.16 The 60 cm H2O inflation pressure is, however, higher than the mean arterial blood pressure of children and infants, and thus we selected a second lower cuff inflation pressure below this range (40 cm H2O). No data are available on the optimal cuff pressure to preserve pharyngeal mucosal blood flow in infants and children. We assumed that if sealing were effective at 40 cm H2O the side effects of higher inflation pressures (e.g., sore throat) would be minimized. The sealing pressures at 40 and 60 cm H2O cuff inflation were similar. Age is often reported as a risk factor for complications during pediatric anesthesia.17 In a survey of 9289 anesthetics in patients younger than 62 mo, the incidence of airway complications were related to age.18 Our study was not powered to confirm these results, especially as complications other than sore throat and dysphonia were uncommon.

LMAU use in infants has been limited due to the relatively frequent incidence of airway complications associated with the size 1 LMAU.19–21 One study found a 22% incidence of airway complications when the LMAU 1 was used.20 Bagshaw22 reported a complication rate of 42% with the use of a size 1.5 LMAU with complications more common in younger patients. Positioning the size 1 LMAU was also found to be difficult and resulted in respiratory complications in 30% of the patients.17 In 6% of patients, the device functioned inadequately with insertion followed by delayed airway obstruction in 24% of children.16 Others report similar difficulties with small sizes of LMAUs.23 These problems resulted from distortion of the airway with epiglottic down-folding that might have contributed to the partial upper airway obstruction.17 Once in place, accidental dislodgement of the LMAU can occur, but this is considered a minor complication if the patient’s airway is accessible.23 Distortion of the LMAU by epiglottic down-folding occurs in as many as 90% of children after the insertion of sizes 2 and 2.5 LMAUs; this might contribute to partial upper airway obstruction.17,24 Usually, this does not affect the device’s functionality with spontaneous breathing but it can cause difficulties with positive pressure ventilation and it may hamper intubation through an LMAU.

Epiglottic folding causing partial or complete obstruction was also found in 77% of patients 10 kg and undermanaged with CobraPLA.25 In marked contrast, we did not observe laryngeal view obstruction by the epiglottis in the CobraPLA group. In the LMAU group, however, there were two cases with epiglottis down-folding after induction and six before emergence, which indicated the tendency for the position of LMAU to shift during anesthesia. As in other studies this shift in LMAU position did not seriously affect ventilation.17

The success rate at first and second attempts was more than 95% and 99% respectively with both airways. This contrasts with earlier reports of a 90%26 and 86%24 success rate for LMAU placement at first attempt with only a 97% success rate by the third attempt. The fit and sealing characteristics of CobraPLA (1.5 and 2) in mechanically ventilated children were found adequate in 90% of cases at the first attempt and 97.5% at the second attempt.27

We found the CobraPLA to be more stable than the LMAU. The apparent stability of the CobraPLA can be attributed to its wide, flat distal head, which is rigid enough to prevent rotation of the device. The better anatomical fit of the CobraPLA becomes especially important if fiberoptic intubation through the device is needed.8,10

Distension of the stomach can lead to pulmonary embarrassment by splinting the diaphragm and could predispose reflux and pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents. The incidence of gastroesophageal insufflation during use of the LMAU, assessed qualitatively, depends on airway pressure and is reported to range from 0%28 to 35%.29 In a previous study, LMAU malposition increased the chance of gastric insufflation from 3% to 19%.30 Our CobraPLA patients had less gastric volume than those in the LMAU group which may have related to a better anatomical fit with the CobraPLA. Nitrous oxide was administered at the same concentration in all patients, and its influence on cuff pressure was limited by monitoring and maintaining cuff pressure at 40 mm Hg. Nonetheless, patients in the CobraPLA group had a slightly longer anesthesia time and less gastric distention than the LMAU group.

A limitation is that we measured gastric volume by OGT aspiration. Although gastric volume has been measured this way in previous studies,23,31 the method can be inaccurate. Gastric volume can be qualitatively assessed by epigastric auscultation,32–34 since as little as 5 mL of gas entering the stomach can be detected by this method.35 In one study, for children managed with a LMAU, the stomach gas volume measured by auscultation was reportedly lower (0.22 ± 0.25 mL/kg)26 than in our patients (1.3 mL/kg). This difference may have been that we aspirated the stomach after we performed the airway sealing measurements and then removed the OGT; at the end of anesthesia we reinserted the OGT. Our measured gas volume thus reflected the gas volume leaked into the stomach during surgery. In contrast, an OGT left in situ, as in previous studies, may allow some air to escape around it.

Previous work suggests that the small tidal volumes in infants make ETco2 measurements at the Y-piece piece of the circle system inaccurate compared with measurements at the end of an endotracheal tube.36 Our results support this assertion, as values were greater (and presumably more accurate) at the head of the CobraPLA. The difference was 6.4 ± 6 mm Hg which could be clinically important. The substantial differences found between ETCO2 concentrations at the Cobra PLA’s head and the circuit Y-piece in children up to 30 kg suggest that CobraPLA head gas sampling is potentially beneficial in most pediatric patients, not just infants. It remains unclear whether this difference results only from increased dead-space or if a leak around the CobraPLA may have also contributed.

In summary, the CobraPLA performed as well as the LMAU Classic during anesthesia in infants and children but proved superior with regards to the anatomical fit and stability within the airway. The CobraPLA also produced less gastric insufflation. In infants, the distal site sampling of ETco2 with the CobraPLA may be more accurate than the standard measurement site at the Y-piece piece of the anesthesia circuit.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank Gil Haugh, MS, from the University of Louisville, KY, for his assistance with the statistical analysis.

Footnotes

Accepted for publication June 18, 2008.

Supported by Engineered Medical Systems, Indianapolis, IN Grant HSC-MS-03-073. Dr. Sessler’s time was supported by the Joseph Drown Foundation (Los Angeles, CA). The sponsor was not involved in study design, data collection or analysis, nor manuscript preparation.

Presented, in part, at the American Society of Anesthesiologists Meeting, Chicago, IL, October 14–18, 2006; American Society of Anesthesiologists Meeting, New Orleans, LA/Atlanta, GA, 2005; and IARS 79th Clinical and Scientific Congress, Honolulu, HI, March 11–15, 2005.

REFERENCES

  1. Pennant JH, White PF. The laryngeal mask airway. Its uses in anesthesiology. Anesthesiology 1993;79:144–63[Web of Science][Medline]
  2. Brimacombe J. Analysis of 1500 laryngeal mask uses by one anaesthetist in adults undergoing routine anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 1996;51:76–80[Web of Science][Medline]
  3. Maltby JR, Loken RG, Watson NC. The laryngeal mask airway: clinical appraisal in 250 patients. Can J Anaesth 1990;37:509–13[Web of Science][Medline]
  4. Verghese C, Brimacombe JR. Survey of laryngeal mask airway usage in 11,910 patients: safety and efficacy for conventional and nonconventional usage. Anesth Analg 1996;82:129–33[Abstract]
  5. Practice guidelines for management of the difficult airway: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. Anesthesiology 2003;98:1269–77[Web of Science][Medline]
  6. Akça O, Wadhwa A, Sengupta P, Durrani J, Hanni K, Wenke M, Yücel Y, Lenhardt R, Doufas AG, Sessler DI. The new perilaryngeal airway (CobraPLA‘) is as efficient as the laryngeal mask airway (LMAU‘), but provides better airway sealing pressures. Anesth Analg 2004;99:272–8[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Szmuk P, Ezri T, Akca O, Alfery DD. Use of a new supraglottic airway device–the cobraPLA–in a ’difficult to intubate/difficult to ventilate’ scenario. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2005;49:421–3[Web of Science][Medline]
  8. Szmuk P, Ezri T, Narwani A, Alfery DD. Use of cobraPLA as a conduit for fiberoptic intubation in a child with neck instability. Paediatr Anaesth 2006;16:217–8[Medline]
  9. Szmuk P, Ghelber O, Akca O, Ezri T. CobraPLA as a conduit for flexible bronchoscopy in a child under general anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 2005;94:548–9[Free Full Text]
  10. Szmuk P, Matuszczeak M, Carlson RF, Warters RD, Rabb MF, Ezri T. Use of cobraPLA for airway management in a neonate with desbuquois syndrome. Case report and anesthetic implications. Paediatr Anaesth 2005;15:602–5[Medline]
  11. Keller C, Brimacombe JR, Keller K, Morris R. Comparison of four methods for assessing airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in adult patients. Br J Anaesth 1999;82:286–7[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Brimacombe J, Berry A. A proposed fiber-optic scoring system to standardize the assessment of laryngeal mask airway position. Anesth Analg 1993;76:457[Web of Science][Medline]
  13. Graziotti PJ. Intermittent positive pressure ventilation through a laryngeal mask airway. Is a nasogastric tube useful? Anaesthesia 1992;47:1088–90[Web of Science][Medline]
  14. Galvin EM, van Doorn M, Blazquez J, Ubben JF, Zijlstra FJ, Klein J, Verbrugge SJ. A randomized prospective study comparing the cobra perilaryngeal airway and laryngeal mask airway-classic during controlled ventilation for gynecological laparoscopy. Anesth Analg 2007;104:102–5[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Arens R, McDonough JM, Corbin AM, Hernandez ME, Maislin G, Schwab RJ, Pack AI. Linear dimensions of the upper airway structure during development: assessment by magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;165:117–22[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Brimacombe J, Keller C, Puhringer F. Pharyngeal mucosal pressure and perfusion: a fiberoptic evaluation of the posterior pharynx in anesthetized adult patients with a modified cuffed oropharyngeal airway. Anesthesiology 1999;91:1661–5[Web of Science][Medline]
  17. Bordet F, Allaouchiche B, Lansiaux S, Combet S, Pouyau A, Taylor P, Bonnard C, Chassard D. Risk factors for airway complications during general anaesthesia in paediatric patients. Paediatr Anaesth 2002;12:762–9[Web of Science][Medline]
  18. Bonoli P, Grillone G, Fossa S, Franceschelli N, Lari S, Leykin Y, Nastasi M, Zanoni A. [Complications of pediatric anesthesia. Survey carried out by the study group SIAARTI for anesthesia and intensive therapy in children]. Minerva Anestesiol 1995;61:115–25[Medline]
  19. Harnett M, Kinirons B, Heffernan A, Motherway C, Casey W. Airway complications in infants: comparison of laryngeal mask airway and the facemask-oral airway. Can J Anaesth 2000;47:315–8[Web of Science][Medline]
  20. Lopez-Gil M, Brimacombe J, Cebrian J, Arranz J. Laryngeal mask airway in pediatric practice: a prospective study of skill acquisition by anesthesia residents. Anesthesiology 1996;84:807–11[Web of Science][Medline]
  21. Mizushima A, Wardall GJ, Simpson DL. The laryngeal mask airway in infants. Anaesthesia 1992;47:849–51[Web of Science][Medline]
  22. Bagshaw O. The size 1.5 laryngeal mask airway (LMAU) in paediatric anaesthetic practice. Paediatr Anaesth 2002;12:420–3[Web of Science][Medline]
  23. Dubreuil M, Laffon M, Plaud B, Penon C, Ecoffey C. Complications and fiberoptic assessment of size 1 laryngeal mask airway. Anesth Analg 1993;76:527–9[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. McGinn G, Haynes SR, Morton NS. An evaluation of the laryngeal mask airway during routine paediatric anaesthesia. Paediatr Anaesth 1993;3:23–8[Medline]
  25. Polaner DM, Ahuja D, Zuk J, Pan Z. Video assessment of supraglottic airway orientation through the perilaryngeal airway in pediatric patients. Anesth Analg 2006;102:1685–8[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Mason DG, Bingham RM. The laryngeal mask airway in children. Anaesthesia 1990;45:760–3[Web of Science][Medline]
  27. Passariello M, Almenrader N, Coccetti B, Haiberger R, Pietropaoli P. Insertion characteristics, sealing pressure and fiberoptic positioning of cobraPLA in children. Paediatr Anaesth 2007;17:977–82[Medline]
  28. Epstein RH, Ferouz F, Jenkins MA. Airway sealing pressures of the laryngeal mask airway in pediatric patients. J Clin Anesth 1996;8:93–8[Web of Science][Medline]
  29. Devitt JH, Wenstone R, Noel AG, O’Donnell MP. The laryngeal mask airway and positive-pressure ventilation. Anesthesiology 1994;80:550–5[Web of Science][Medline]
  30. Latorre F, Eberle B, Weiler N, Mienert R, Stanek A, Goedecke R, Heinrichs W. Laryngeal mask airway position and the risk of gastric insufflation. Anesth Analg 1998;86:867–71[Abstract]
  31. Selby IR, Morris P. Intermittent positive ventilation through a laryngeal mask in children: does it cause gastric dilatation? Paediatr Anaesth 1997;7:305–8[Web of Science][Medline]
  32. Asai T, Kawashima A, Hidaka I, Kawachi S. The laryngeal tube compared with the laryngeal mask: insertion, gas leak pressure and gastric insufflation. Br J Anaesth 2002;89:729–32[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Ho-Tai LM, Devitt JH, Noel AG, O’Donnell MP. Gas leak and gastric insufflation during controlled ventilation: face mask versus laryngeal mask airway. Can J Anaesth 1998;45:206–11[Web of Science][Medline]
  34. Wahlen BM, Heinrichs W, Latorre F. Gastric insufflation pressure, air leakage and respiratory mechanics in the use of the laryngeal mask airway (LMAU) in children. Paediatr Anaesth 2004;14:313–7[Medline]
  35. Brimacomb J, Keller C, Kurian S, Myles J. Reliability of epigastric auscultation to detect gastric insufflation. Br J Anaesth 2002;88:127–9[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Badgwell JM, McLeod ME, Lerman J, Creighton RE. End-tidal PCO2 measurements sampled at the distal and proximal ends of the endotracheal tube in infants and children. Anesth Analg 1987;66:959–64[Abstract/Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JWatch Emergency Med.Home page
The Cobra PLA vs. the LMA Unique in Children
Journal Watch Emergency Medicine, December 5, 2008; 2008(1205): 2 - 2.
[Full Text]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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 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 (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Szmuk, P.
Right arrow Articles by Sessler, D. I.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Szmuk, P.
Right arrow Articles by Sessler, D. I.
Related Collections
Right arrow Airway
Right arrow Pediatrics

Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2008 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999 HighWire Press