Skip Navigation

British Journal of Anaesthesia 2006 96(2):149-152; doi:10.1093/bja/aei312
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow E-letters: View responses
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 Cook, T. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cook, T. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia 2006. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

EDITORIAL

Editorial I: The classic laryngeal mask airway: a tried and tested airway. What now?

T. M. Cook

Bath, UK

E-mail: timcook@ukgateway.net

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Safe, effective airway management is a foundation of quality anaesthetic practice and the classic laryngeal mask airway (cLMA) (LMA-ClassicTM, Intavent Orthofix, Maidenhead, UK) is one of the keystones of modern anaesthetic practice. The past 2 years have seen the introduction of inexpensive competitors. With this, the decision as to which laryngeal mask to use is being taken out of the hands of anaesthetists by managers and purchasers in many hospitals. This has great implications for anaesthetic practice and this editorial considers the many issues raised by the introduction of single-use laryngeal masks.

The cLMA achieves a reliable airway with a low incidence of major complications and pharyngo-laryngeal morbidity. Consequently, since its introduction, the cLMA has transformed routine anaesthesia. There have been an estimated 200 million patient uses, over 2500 academic papers and, some would argue, only one death directly attributable to its use.1 Whether this is accepted, or not, . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Declaration of interest


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
P. Flynn, S. Clarke, and V. Mitchell
Single-use LMAs--a cautionary tale.
Br. J. Anaesth., August 1, 2006; 97(2): 265 - 266.
[Full Text] [PDF]

E-letters:

Read all E-letters

The classic laryngeal mask airway: a tried and tested airway. What now?
Donald M Miller
British Journal of Anaesthesia, 21 Feb 2006 [Full text]
The classic laryngeal mask airway: a tried and tested airway. What now?
Tim M Cook
British Journal of Anaesthesia, 1 Mar 2006 [Full text]
Patient safety and the introduction of regulations for supraglottic airways.
Donald M Miller
British Journal of Anaesthesia, 20 Mar 2006 [Full text]
Re-usable or single use laryngeal masks?
Baha Al-Shaikh, et al.
British Journal of Anaesthesia, 21 Mar 2006 [Full text]
Re: Re-usable or single use laryngeal masks?
Tim M Cook
British Journal of Anaesthesia, 26 Mar 2006 [Full text]
Difficulty with the use of the disposable Ambu LMA
NAMITA ARORA, et al.
British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2 May 2006 [Full text]