Skip Navigation



BJA Advance Access published online on May 19, 2009
British Journal of Anaesthesia, doi:10.1093/bja/aep106
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
103/2/263    most recent
aep106v1
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 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 arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Micaglio, M.
Right arrow Articles by Ori, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Micaglio, M.
Right arrow Articles by Ori, C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2009]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Board of Directors of the British Journal of Anaesthesia. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournal.org

Prospective, randomized comparison of ProSealTM and ClassicTM laryngeal mask airways in anaesthetized neonates and infants

M. Micaglio1,*, R. Bonato1, M. De Nardin1, M. Parotto1, D. Trevisanuto2, V. Zanardo2, N. Doglioni2 and C. Ori1

1 Institute of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Department of Pharmacology and Anesthesiology
2 Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Padova, Via C. Battisti, 267, IT-35121 Padua, Italy

* Corresponding author. E-mail: m.micaglio{at}libero.it

Background: When compared with the ClassicTM laryngeal mask airway (cLMA), the recently introduced ProSealTM laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) has modified features to produce higher airway seal pressures and enable ventilation in circumstances where the cLMA might fail. The first neonatal size 1 PLMA recently became available. This study was designed to compare the effectiveness of the size 1 cLMA and PLMA during positive pressure ventilation in anesthetized neonates and infants.

Methods: Forty-six consecutive patients undergoing elective cardiac surgical procedures were randomized for initial airway management with the cLMA or PLMA. Insertion time (IT), number of placement attempts, ease of placement, quality of the initial airway, maximum tidal volume (TVmax), and airway pressure at which an audible leak in the mouth (Pleak) occurred were collected. All data were recorded before performing tracheal intubations.

Results: IT and success rate were similar for both LMAs. The initial quality of the airway was significantly better for the PLMA (P<0.05). TVmax and Pleak were significantly higher for PLMA (77 vs 58 ml, P<0.02 and 29.8 vs 24.4 cm H2O, P<0.02). No adverse events were recorded during the study.

Conclusions: The size 1 PLMA forms a more effective seal than size 1 cLMA in neonates. This might allow the PLMA to be used in those newborn infants requiring high airway pressures for ventilation.

Keywords: airway; equipment; larynx; neonates


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.