A clinical comparison of the Laryngeal Tube™ and the Laryngeal Mask™ in spontaneously breathing anesthetized patients

• Authors: Johanna Albert , Leif Kindlund , Barbro Nilvér , Waldemar Gożdzik
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Abstract: Background: The laryngeal mask airway (LMA) can be used in general anaesthesia without neuromuscular block. The laryngeal tube (LT) is a new airway device with similar airway features as LMA. LT is provided with a distal cuff to prevent regurgitation. In this study we compared the LMA and LT concerning patient and user aspects.Methods: Sixty patients with ASA (American Society of Anestesiologists) score 1–2 scheduled for minor surgery were randomized to be ventilated either through LMA or LT. After insertion, the number of insertion attempts, and “positioning” and “airway-assessment” was evaluated. The patients reported on “sore throat” after 30 and 60 minutes and the day after anaesthesia.Results: Gender and mean age were equal in both groups. The first insertion attempt was successful in 25 of 28 patients randomised to LMA and in 23 of 27 patients randomised to LT. LMA was evaluated to be easier in “positioning” whereas no difference in “sore throat” was reported.Conclusion: We found no difference between the LMA and the LT in terms user and patient friendliness and safety.

Keywords

EN

Laryngeal tube; laryngeal mask; spontaneous breathing

• Publisher: De Gruyter Open
• Journal: Open Medicine
• Year: 2006
• Volume: 1
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 162-171

Dates

published

1 - 6 - 2006

online

1 - 6 - 2006

Contributors

author

Johanna Albert

• Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Sciences, Division of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Danderyds Hospital, Stockholm, 182 88, Sweden

author

Leif Kindlund

• Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Sciences, Division of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Danderyds Hospital, Stockholm, 182 88, Sweden

author

Barbro Nilvér

• Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Sciences, Division of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Danderyds Hospital, Stockholm, 182 88, Sweden

author

Waldemar Gożdzik

• Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, Medical University Wroclaw, 50-368, Wroclaw, Poland

References

• [1] H. Ocker, V. Wenzel, P. Schmucker, M. Steinfath and V. Dörges: “A comparison of the Laryngeal Tube with the Laryngeal Mask Airway During Routine Surgical Procedures”, Anesth. Analg., Vol. 95, (2002), pp. 1094–1097. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00000539-200210000-00057[Crossref]
• [2] J.R. Brimacombe and A. Berry: “The incidence of aspiration associated with the laryngeal mask airway: a meta-analysis of published literature”, J. Clin. Anesth., Vol. 7, (1995), pp. 297–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0952-8180(95)00026-E[Crossref]
• [3] T. Asai, K. Shingu and T. Cook: “Use of the laryngeal tube in 100 patients”, Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand., Vol. 47, (2003), pp. 828–832. http://dx.doi.org/10.1034/j.1399-6576.2003.00183.x[Crossref]
• [4] D.M. Miller, I. Youkhana and C. Pearce: “The laryngeal mask and VBM laryngeal tube compared during spontaneous ventilation. A pilot study, Eur. J. Anaesthesiol., Vol. 18, (2001), pp. 593–598. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2346.2001.00895.x[Crossref]
• [5] V. Dörges, H. Ocker, V. Wenzel, M. Steinfath and K. Gerlach: “The Laryngeal Tube S: A Modified Simple Aiway Device, Anesth. Analg., Vol. 96, (2003), pp. 618–621. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00000539-200302000-00057[Crossref]
• [6] J. Bromacombe, C. Keller and L. Brimacombe: “Comparison of the laryngeal mask airway ProSeal and the laryngeal tube airway in paralyzed anesthetized adult patients undergoing pressure-controlled ventilation”, Anesth. Analg., Vol. 95, (2002), pp. 770–776. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00000539-200209000-00045[Crossref]
• [7] T. Asai, K. Murao and K. Shingu: “Efficacy of the laryngeal tube during intermittent positive-pressure ventilation”, Anaesthesia, Vol.55, (2000), p. 1099. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2044.2000.01710.x[Crossref]
• [8] E. Figueredo, M. Martinez and T. Pintanel: “A comparison of the ProSeal™ Laryngeal Mask and the Laryngeal Tube® in spontaneously breathing anesthetized patients”, Anesth. Analg., Vol. 96, (2003), pp. 600–605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00000539-200302000-00054[Crossref]
• [9] T.M. Cook, C. McKinstry, R. Hardy and S. Twigg: “Randomized crossover comparison of the ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway with the Laryngeal Tube® during anaesthesia with controlled ventilation, Br. J. Anaesth., Vol. 91, (2003), pp. 678–683. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bja/aeg239[Crossref]
• [10] D. Grady, F. McHardy, J. Wong, J. Fengling, D. Tong and F. Chung: “Pharyngolaryngeal Morbidity with the Laryngeal Mask Airway in Spontaneously Breathing Patients: Does Size Matter”, Anesthesiology, Vol. 94, (2001), pp. 760–766. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200105000-00012[Crossref]
• [11] Laryngeal Mask Airway Instruction Manual, Intavent Ltd, Maidenhead, UK, 2002.
• [12] S. Kihara, J. Brimacombe, Y. Yaguchi, N. Taguchi and S. Watanabe: “A comparison of gender and weight-based ProSeal™ laryngeal mask size selection criteria: a randomised study of healthy anesthetized, paralysed adult patients”, Anesthesiology, Vol.94, (2004), pp. 1023–1027.
• [13] S.R. Mallampati, S.P. Gatt and L.D. Gugino: “A clinical sign to predict difficult tracheal intubation: a prospective study”, Can. Anaesthet. Soc. J., Vol. 32, (1985), pp. 429–434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03011357[Crossref]

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/s11536-006-0016-9