Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (7)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Frohlich, D.
Right arrow Articles by Hobbhahn, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Frohlich, D.
Right arrow Articles by Hobbhahn, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, Vol 79, Issue 3 289-292, Copyright © 1997 by The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia

CLINICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Laryngeal mask airway and uncuffed tracheal tubes are equally effective for low flow or closed system anaesthesia in children

D. Frohlich, B. Schwall, W. Funk and J. Hobbhahn
Department of Anaesthesia, University of Regensburg, 93042 Regensburg, Germany

Low flow and closed system anaesthesia have considerable advantages in economy, limited atmospheric pollution, and maintenance of humidification and temperature. To benefit from these techniques leakage from the breathing system should be as low as possible. The sealing of the airway is crucial to ensure this. Therefore, we have investigated in 30 children, aged 2-6 yr, the effectiveness of the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) and the uncuffed tracheal tube (TT) for closed system paediatric anaesthesia, during positive pressure ventilation, in a prospective, randomized study. Ventilation was adequate in all cases with both devices. Loss of gas from the breathing system was less than 100 ml min-1 in 13 (87%) patients in the LMA and in 12 (80%) patients in the TT group, with a maximum of approximately 700 ml min-1 in the TT and approximately 350 ml min-1 in the LMA group. We conclude that the airway sealing with both devices was tight enough to perform low flow or closed system anaesthesia in paediatric patients aged 2-6 yr.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.