Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
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 (8)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Okuda, K.
Right arrow Articles by Hiroki, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Okuda, K.
Right arrow Articles by Hiroki, K.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2001, Vol. 86, No. 1 122-124
© 2001 The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia

Influence of head and neck position on cuff position and oropharyngeal sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in children

K. Okuda, G. Inagawa, T. Miwa and K. Hiroki*

Department of Anesthesiology, Kanagawa Children’s Medical Center, 2-138-4 Mutsukawa, Minamiku, Yokohama, Japan*Corresponding author

{dagger} LMA is the property of Intavent Limited.

We studied how head and neck position affect the cuff position and oropharyngeal sealing pressures of the laryngeal mask airways (LMAs) in children. We studied 39 non-paralyzed healthy children aged 1.5–8.0 yr, weighing 10.3–27.0 kg, managed with size 2 or 2.5 LMAs during elective surgery. Head and neck movements did not adversely affect airway patency in 97% of patients. One child developed apparent airway obstruction with head and neck flexion, which was relieved in the neutral position. Oropharyngeal sealing pressure was significantly greater during neck flexion compared with the neutral position (P<0.02). Fibreoptic examination revealed that the epiglottis covered a larger area of the LMA aperture during neck flexion, compared with the neutral position (P<0.02).

Br J Anaesth 2001; 86: 122–4


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
 Contin Educ Anaesth Crit Care PainHome page
B. Patel and R. Bingham
Laryngeal mask airway and other supraglottic airway devices in paediatric practice
CEACCP, February 1, 2009; 9(1): 6 - 9.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
C. A. Hagberg, F. S. Jensen, H. V. Genzwuerker, R. Krivosic-Horber, B. U. Schmitz, J. Hinkelbein, M. Contzen, H. Menu, and K. Bourzoufi
A Multicenter Study of the Ambu(R) Laryngeal Mask in Nonparalyzed, Anesthetized Patients
Anesth. Analg., December 1, 2005; 101(6): 1862 - 1866.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
K. Goldmann and C. Jakob
Size 2 ProSealTM laryngeal mask airway: a randomized, crossover investigation with the standard laryngeal mask airway in paediatric patients
Br. J. Anaesth., March 1, 2005; 94(3): 385 - 389.
[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.