A multicenter study comparing the ProSeal™ and Classic™ laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized, nonparalyzed patients

被引:170
|
作者
Brimacombe, J
Keller, C
Fullekrug, B
Agrò, F
Rosenblatt, W
Dierdorf, SF
de Lucas, EG
Capdevilla, X
Brimacombe, N [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Queensland, Cairns Base Hosp, Cairns 4870, Australia
[2] Leopold Franzens Univ, Dept Anaesthesia & Intens Care Med, Innsbruck, Austria
[3] Univ Hosp Eppendorf, Dept Anaesthesiol, Hamburg, Germany
[4] Univ Sch Med, Dept Anaesthesia, LIU, Rome, Italy
[5] Yale Univ, Sch Med, Dept Anesthesia, New Haven, CT USA
[6] Indiana Univ, Sch Med, Dept Anesthesia, Indianapolis, IN 46202 USA
[7] Hosp Gen Univ Gregorio Maranon, Dept Anaesthesia, Madrid, Spain
[8] Lapeyronie Univ Hosp, Dept Anesthesiol & Crit Care Med, Montpellier, France
[9] Univ Leeds, Leeds, W Yorkshire, England
关键词
D O I
10.1097/00000542-200202000-00011
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Background The laryngeal mask airway ProSeal(TM) (PLMA(TM)), a new laryngeal mask device, was compared with the laryngeal mask airway Classic(TM) (LMA(TM)) with respect to: (1) insertion success rates and times; (2) efficacy of seal; (3) fiberoptically determined anatomic position; (4) orogastric tube insertion success rates and times; (5) total intraoperative complications; and (6) postoperative sore throat in nonparalyzed adult patients undergoing general anesthesia, hypothesizing that these would be different. Methods: Three hundred eighty-four nonparalyzed anesthetized adult patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II) were randomly allocated to the PLMA(TM),1 or LMA(TM) for airway management. In addition, 50% of patients were randomized for orogastric tube placement. Unblinded observers collected intraoperative data, and blinded observers collected postoperative data. Results: First-attempt insertion success rates (91 vs. 82%, P = 0.015) were higher for the LMA(TM), but after three attempts success rates were similar (LMA(TM), 100%; PLMA(TM), 98%). Less time was required to achieve an effective airway with the LMA(TM) (31 +/- 30 vs. 41 +/- 49 s; P = 0.02). The PLMA(TM) formed a more effective seal (27 +/- 7 vs. 22 +/- 6 cm H2O; P < 0.0001). Fiberoptically determined anatomic position was better with the LMA(TM) (P < 0.0001). Orogastric tube insertion was more successful after two attempts (88 vs. 55%; P < 0.0001) and quicker (22 +/- 18 vs. 38 +/- 56 s) with the PLMA(TM). During maintenance, the PLMA(TM) failed twice (leak, stridor) and the LMA(TM) failed once (laryngospasm). Total intraoperative complications were similar for both groups. The incidence of postoperative sore throat was similar. Conclusion: In anesthetized, nonparalyzed patients, the LMA(TM) is easier and quicker to insert, but the PLMA(TM) forms a better seal and facilitates easier and quicker orogastric tube placement. The incidence of total intraoperative complications and postoperative sore throat are similar.
引用
收藏
页码:289 / 295
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A randomized study to compare ProSeal laryngeal mask airway with classic laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized patients
    Taxak, Susheela
    Kaur, Kiranpreet
    Kaushik, Shubham
    Singh, Rita
    [J]. EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2013, 29 (04) : 285 - 290
  • [2] A multicenter study of the Ambu® laryngeal mask in nonparalyzed, anesthetized patients
    Hagberg, CA
    Jensen, FS
    Genzwuerker, HV
    Krivosic-Horber, R
    Schmitz, BU
    Hinkelbein, J
    Contzen, M
    Menu, H
    Bourzoufi, K
    [J]. ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2005, 101 (06): : 1862 - 1866
  • [3] The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway - A randomized, crossover study with the standard laryngeal mask airway in paralyzed, anesthetized patients
    Brimacombe, J
    Keller, C
    [J]. ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2000, 93 (01) : 104 - 109
  • [4] Proseal Laryngeal mask airway or Classic Laryngeal mask airway in spontaneous ventilation?
    Galarioti, V.
    Michaloliakou, Ch.
    Kalanzi, N.
    Pagoulatou, A.
    Andrianopoulou, A.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY, 2004, 21 : 68 - 68
  • [5] Randomized prospective study comparing the laryngeal tube suction II with the ProSeal™ Laryngeal Mask Airway in anesthetized and paralyzed patients
    Kikuchi, Tatsuaki
    Kamiya, Yoshinori
    Ohtsuka, Tsuyoshi
    Miki, Tomoko
    Goto, Takahisa
    [J]. ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2008, 109 (01) : 54 - 60
  • [6] Comparing the ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway with the laryngeal tube airway
    Cook, T
    [J]. ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2003, 97 (04): : 1202 - 1202
  • [7] Comparing performance of ProSeal laryngeal mask airway and I-gel in anesthetized adult patients
    Zhang, Jia-Qiang
    Meng, Fan-Min
    Xue, Fu-Shan
    Li, Rui-Ping
    [J]. SAUDI MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2015, 36 (09) : 1130 - 1130
  • [8] A comparison of the Supreme™ laryngeal mask airway with the Proseal™ laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized paralyzed adult patients: a randomized crossover study
    Tham, Huae Min
    Tan, Su Meng
    Woon, Kwee Lian
    Zhao, Yu Dong
    [J]. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA-JOURNAL CANADIEN D ANESTHESIE, 2010, 57 (07): : 672 - 678
  • [9] A RANDOMIZED CROSSOVER COMPARISON OF THE LARYNGEAL MASK AIRWAY PROSEAL AND LARYNGEAL MASK AIRWAY SUPREME IN ANESTHETIZED ADULT PATIENTS
    Jannu, Vinayaka
    Dhorigol, M. G.
    Sanikop, C. S.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION OF MEDICAL AND DENTAL SCIENCES-JEMDS, 2015, 4 (85): : 14828 - 14833
  • [10] Comparing the ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway with the laryngeal tube airway -: In response
    Figueredo, E
    Martinez, M
    [J]. ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2003, 97 (04): : 1203 - 1203