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 (26)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cook, T. M.
Right arrow Articles by Twigg, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cook, T. M.
Right arrow Articles by Twigg, S.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2003, Vol. 91, No. 5 678-683
© 2003 The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia


Clinical Investigations

Randomized crossover comparison of the ProSealTM laryngeal mask airway with the Laryngeal Tube® during anaesthesia with controlled ventilation

T. M. Cook*, C. McKinstry, R. Hardy and S. Twigg

Royal United Hospital, Combe Park, Bath, UK

Corresponding author

Background. The Laryngeal Tube (LT®) performs similarly to the classic laryngeal mask airway during controlled ventilation but with an improved airway seal. We compared the laryngeal tube with the ProSealTM laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) throughout anaesthesia.

Methods. Thirty-two patients were studied using a randomized cross-over design. The primary outcome measure was airway seal pressure. Secondary outcome measures included peak and plateau airway pressures, time to achieve an airway, ease of insertion, airway manipulations required to achieve a patent airway and grade of fibre-optic laryngoscopy. The proportion of patients in whom good, fair or failed ventilation was achieved was also calculated.

Results. No significant difference was found in regard to seal pressure (PLMA, median 26.5 cm H2O, range 10–40; LT, median 24, range 6–40; P=0.7, 95% confidence interval of the difference 3.5 to –4.0). There were two failures of insertion or ventilation in the LT group and none in the PLMA group. The peak airway pressure with the PLMA was lower than with the LT but the difference was clinically unimportant (PLMA, mean 16.2 cm H2O, SD 3.52; LT, mean 17.9, SD 5.21; P=0.02, 95% confidence interval of the difference –3.1 to –0.28). The PLMA took significantly less time to insert than the LT (PLMA, median 18.5 s, interquartile range 14–26; LT, median 22, interquartile range 15–36.5; P<0.02, 95% confidence interval of the difference –21.5 to –1.0). The PLMA gave a significantly better view on fibre-optic laryngoscopy than the LT (P<0.001, 95% confidence interval of the difference in grade –2.0 to –1.0). In the 16 patients in whom the PLMA was used during maintenance of anaesthesia ventilation was good in 15, fair in none and failed in one. The equivalent figures for the LT were good in nine, fair in six and failed in one (P=0.009). There was no significant difference in the plateau airway pressure, ease of insertion of the devices, number of manipulations required to achieve or maintain an airway, or in overall complications.

Conclusion. The two devices performed equally well in terms of seal pressure. The PLMA was quicker to insert. Efficacy of ventilation was significantly better with the PLMA than the LT. The PLMA allowed a significantly better view of the larynx with a fibre-optic laryngoscope, and may therefore be of more use in cases where visualization of the larynx is required.

Br J Anaesth 2003; 91: 678–83


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
J. T. Kim, S. Y. Jeon, C. S. Kim, S. D. Kim, and H. S. Kim
Alternative method for predicting optimal insertion depth of the laryngeal tube in children
Br. J. Anaesth., November 1, 2007; 99(5): 704 - 707.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Br J AnaesthHome page
R. Mihai, G. Knottenbelt, and T. M. Cook
Evaluation of the revised laryngeal tube suction: the laryngeal tube suction II in 100 patients
Br. J. Anaesth., November 1, 2007; 99(5): 734 - 739.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Br J AnaesthHome page
T. Asai and K. Shingu
The laryngeal tube
Br. J. Anaesth., December 1, 2005; 95(6): 729 - 736.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Br J AnaesthHome page
T. M. Cook and J. Cranshaw
Randomized crossover comparison of ProSeal(R) Laryngeal Mask Airway with Laryngeal Tube Sonda(R) during anaesthesia with controlled ventilation
Br. J. Anaesth., August 1, 2005; 95(2): 261 - 266.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Anesth. Analg.Home page
T. M. Cook
Use of the CobraPLATM for Percutaneous Cricothyroidotomy and Tracheostomy
Anesth. Analg., March 1, 2005; 100(3): 902 - 902.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Anesth. Analg.Home page
D. M. Miller
A Proposed Classification and Scoring System for Supraglottic Sealing Airways: A Brief Review
Anesth. Analg., November 1, 2004; 99(5): 1553 - 1559.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Br J AnaesthHome page
F. Agro, G. Barzoi, and B. Galli
The CobraPLATM in 110 anaesthetized and paralysed patients: what size to choose?
Br. J. Anaesth., May 1, 2004; 92(5): 777 - 778.
[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.