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
  • [21] Use of a modified ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway to facilitate diagnostic fiberoptic bronchoscopy in anesthetized patients
    Fu-Shan Xue
    Nong He
    Ping-Chao Xiang
    Jian-Hua Liu
    Xiu Zheng Xu
    [J]. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie, 2009, 56
  • [22] Comparison of the Applicability and Safety of the Cobra Peri laryngeal Airway and the Laryngeal Mask Airway Classic in Anesthetized and Paralyzed Patients
    Ali, Achmet
    Turkmen, Aygen
    Alkan, Irem
    Turgut, Namigar
    Moralar, Dondu
    Altan, Aysel
    [J]. KUWAIT MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2014, 46 (02): : 119 - 123
  • [23] Anesthesia for pediatric gastroscopy:: a study comparing the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway with nasal cannulae
    Lopez-Gil, Maite
    Brimacombe, Joseph
    Diaz-Reganon, Gonzalo
    [J]. PEDIATRIC ANESTHESIA, 2006, 16 (10) : 1032 - 1035
  • [24] Airway protection with the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway
    Brimacombe, J
    Keller, C
    [J]. ANAESTHESIA AND INTENSIVE CARE, 2001, 29 (03) : 288 - 291
  • [25] The ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway in children
    Lopez-Gil, M
    Brimacombe, J
    [J]. PEDIATRIC ANESTHESIA, 2005, 15 (03) : 229 - 234
  • [26] A comparison of the ProSeal™ laryngeal mask and the Laryngeal Tube® in spontaneously breathing anesthetized patients
    Figueredo, E
    Martínez, M
    Pintanel, T
    [J]. ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2003, 96 (02): : 600 - 605
  • [27] A randomized crossover comparison of the size 2 1/2 laryngeal mask airway ProSeal™ versus Laryngeal Mask Airway-Classic™ in pediatric patients
    Goldmann, K
    Jakob, C
    [J]. ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2005, 100 (06): : 1605 - 1610
  • [28] COMPARISON OF SUPRAGLOTTIC AIRWAY DEVICE I-GEL WITH CLASSIC LARYNGEAL MASK AIRWAY AND PROSEAL LARYNGEAL MASK AIRWAY FOR SHORT SURGICAL PROCEDURES
    Gandhi, Monika
    Arora, K. K.
    Sharma, Akansha
    [J]. JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION OF MEDICAL AND DENTAL SCIENCES-JEMDS, 2018, 7 (18): : 2222 - 2226
  • [29] A randomized controlled trial comparing the ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway with the laryngeal tube suction in mechanically ventilated patients
    Gaitini, LA
    Vaida, SJ
    Somri, M
    Yanovski, B
    Ben-David, B
    Hagberg, CA
    [J]. ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2004, 101 (02) : 316 - 320
  • [30] Use of the size 3 ProSeal® laryngeal mask airway in children.: Results of a randomized crossover investigation with the Classic® laryngeal mask airway
    Goldmann, K
    Roettger, C
    Wulf, H
    [J]. ANAESTHESIST, 2006, 55 (02): : 148 - 153