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 (12)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Keller, C.
Right arrow Articles by Brimacombe, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Keller, C.
Right arrow Articles by Brimacombe, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, Vol 82, Issue 6 922-924, Copyright © 1999 by The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

Mucosal pressures from the cuffed oropharyngeal airway vs the laryngeal mask airway

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

We tested the hypothesis that pressures exerted on the pharyngeal mucosa by the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) and cuffed oropharyngeal airway (COPA) differ, in 20 male and 20 female adult patients. Microchip pressure sensors were attached to the LMA and COPA at four similar anatomical locations (base of the tongue, lateral pharynx, posterior pharynx and distal oropharynx) and two dissimilar locations (LMA, piriform fossa and hypopharynx; COPA, middle of the tongue and proximal oropharynx). Cuff volume was adjusted until oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) was 10 cm H2O and mucosal pressures were recorded. This was repeated at an OLP of 15 cm H2O and at maximal OLP. Overall mucosal pressures were higher for the COPA than the LMA at 10 cm H2O (17 vs 3 cm H2O; P < 0.0001), at 15 cm H2O (21 vs 6 cm H2O; P < 0.0001) and at maximal OLP (26 vs 9 cm H2O; P < 0.0001). Mucosal pressures were always higher for the COPA at the base of the tongue, posterior pharynx and lateral pharynx, but were similar in the distal oropharynx. Maximal OLP was higher for the LMA than the COPA (27 (95% confidence intervals 25- 29) vs 16 (12-19) cm H2O; P < 0.0001). We conclude that pressures acting on the mucosa were higher with the COPA compared with the LMA.
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.