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 (30)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Avidan, M. S.
Right arrow Articles by Ponte, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Avidan, M. S.
Right arrow Articles by Ponte, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, Vol 83, Issue 4 615-617, Copyright © 1999 by The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia

CLINICAL INVESTIGATIONS

The intubating laryngeal mask airway compared with direct laryngoscopy

M. S. Avidan, A. Harvey, N. Chitkara and J. Ponte
Department of Anaesthesia, King's College Hospital, London SE5 9RS, UK

We have compared the ability of naive intubators to intubate the trachea using a laryngoscope and an intubating laryngeal mask airway (ILMA) after receiving basic training, in a randomized, prospective, crossover study in 60 patients. Ventilation of the lungs via the ILMA was also compared with ventilation with a face mask. There was no significant difference in successful intubation between the techniques (38 of 89 with the ILMA and 33 of 93 with direct laryngoscopy; ns). In patients in whom participants failed in their intubation attempts with the ILMA, investigators achieved success in 89% (16 of 18). Satisfactory ventilation was more common with the ILMA (50 of 51) than with the face mask (43 of 60) (P = 0.0001). A total of 98% (89 of 91) of ILMA were inserted successfully, with a mean insertion time of 19.6 s, and 78% (69/89) of these insertions were achieved in less than 26 s. The ILMA may be useful for emergency oxygenation and ventilation, but these results do not support its use for intubation by those not trained in advanced airway management and ILMA use.
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
L. Ye, J. Liu, D. T. Wong, and T. Zhu
Effects of tracheal tube orientation on the success of intubation through an intubating laryngeal mask airway: study in Mallampati class 3 or 4 patients
Br. J. Anaesth., February 1, 2009; 102(2): 269 - 272.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
P. Kundra, N. Sujata, and M. Ravishankar
Conventional Tracheal Tubes for Intubation Through the Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway
Anesth. Analg., January 1, 2005; 100(1): 284 - 288.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
V. Dimitriou, G. S. Voyagis, C. Iatrou, and J. Brimacombe
A Comparison of the PAxpressTM and Face Mask Plus Guedel Airway by Inexperienced Personnel After Mannequin-Only Training
Anesth. Analg., April 1, 2003; 96(4): 1214 - 1217.
[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.