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 (10)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Keller, C.
Right arrow Articles by Benzer, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Keller, C.
Right arrow Articles by Benzer, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, Vol 82, Issue 3 399-401, Copyright © 1999 by The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia

CLINICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Calculated vs measured pharyngeal mucosal pressures with the laryngeal mask airway during cuff inflation: assessment of four locations

C. Keller, J. Brimacombe and A. Benzer
Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, University of Queensland, Cairns Base Hospital, The Esplanade, Cairns 4870, Australia; Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Leopold-Franzens University, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria

We have compared calculated with measured pharyngeal mucosal pressures at four different locations on the surface of the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) during cuff inflation in 10 anaesthetized, paralysed adult patients. Microchip sensors were attached to a size 5 LMA at the following locations: the anterior and lateral side, tip and backplate. Pressures were recorded during inflation of the cuff from 0 to 40 ml in 5-ml increments. Calculated pressures were determined by subtracting in vivo from in vitro intracuff pressures. Calculated pressures were greater than measured pressures at cuff volumes of 5 ml or greater at all locations (P < or = 0.003). The greatest mean calculated the measured pressures were 118 and 14 cm H2O, respectively. We conclude that measured mucosal pressures at the four locations tested were less than calculated pressures and less than capillary perfusion pressure.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
R. J. Lenoir
Venous congestion of the neck; its relation to laryngeal mask cuff pressures
Br. J. Anaesth., September 1, 2004; 93(3): 476 - 477.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
T. Asai and K. Shingu
Time-Related Cuff Pressures of the Laryngeal Tube With and Without the Use of Nitrous Oxide
Anesth. Analg., June 1, 2004; 98(6): 1803 - 1806.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
E. Figueredo, M. Martinez, and T. Pintanel
A Comparison of the ProSealTM Laryngeal Mask and the Laryngeal Tube(R) in Spontaneously Breathing Anesthetized Patients
Anesth. Analg., February 1, 2003; 96(2): 600 - 605.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
C. Keller and J. Brimacombe
Mucosal pressure and oropharyngeal leak pressure with the ProSeal versus laryngeal mask airway in anaesthetized paralysed patients
Br. J. Anaesth., July 1, 2000; 85(2): 262 - 266.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


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.