British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2003, Vol. 91, No. 3 373-378
© 2003 The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia
Clinical Investigations |
Randomized comparison of laryngeal tube with classic laryngeal mask airway for anaesthesia with controlled ventilation
1 Royal United Hospital, Combe Park, Bath, UK. 2 Assistant Professor, Kansai Medical University, 10–15 Fumizono-cho, Moriguchi City, Osaka 570–8507, Japan
Corresponding author 
LMA® is the property of Intavent Limited. 
Declaration of interest. Dr Cook has received an honorarium from Intavent Limited.
Background. Only a prototype laryngeal tube has been compared with the classic LMA for brief periods of anaesthesia. We compared the new laryngeal tube (which had several improvements in design) with the classic LMA.
Methods. We randomly allocated 72 patients to receive either the laryngeal tube or an LMA, and compared adequacy of controlled ventilation during anaesthesia (good: clear airway without complications; fair; clear airway with complications or suboptimal airway; or failed), leak pressure and the incidence of postoperative complications.
Results. Insertion was successful within 2 attempts in all 36 patients for the classic LMA and in 35 patients for the laryngeal tube. The mean leak pressure for the laryngeal tube (28 cm H2O) was significantly greater than that for the classic LMA (21 cm H2O) (P<0.001; 95% CI 3.6–10.0 cm H2O). Ventilation was good in 25 cases, fair in 11, and failed in no patients with the classic laryngeal mask airway; and good in 23, fair in 11 and failed in two for the laryngeal tube. There was no significant difference in adequacy of ventilation between the groups. The median peak airway pressure for the laryngeal tube (17.5 cm H2O) was greater than that for the classic LMA (16 cm H2O) (difference: 2 cm H2O; 95% CI 0–5 cm H2O). There was no significant difference in the incidence and severity of the postoperative complications between the two groups.
Conclusion. The laryngeal tube was as effective as the classic LMA during anaesthesia with controlled ventilation. There were similar operative and postoperative complications.
Br J Anaesth 2003; 91: 373–8
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. El-Orbany and H. J. Woehlck Difficult Mask Ventilation Anesth. Analg., December 1, 2009; 109(6): 1870 - 1880. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. Asai, R. W. L. Goy, and E. H. C. Liu Cricoid pressure prevents placement of the laryngeal tube and laryngeal tube-suction II Br. J. Anaesth., August 1, 2007; 99(2): 282 - 285. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Hagberg, Y. Bogomolny, C. Gilmore, V. Gibson, M. Kaitner, and S. Khurana An Evaluation of the Insertion and Function of a New Supraglottic Airway Device, the King LT TM, During Spontaneous Ventilation Anesth. Analg., February 1, 2006; 102(2): 621 - 625. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Asai and K. Shingu The laryngeal tube Br. J. Anaesth., December 1, 2005; 95(6): 729 - 736. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Part 4: Advanced Life Support Circulation, November 29, 2005; 112(22_suppl): III-25 - III-54. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Carley and C. Gwinnutt Stepwise airway management in the trauma patient Trauma, July 1, 2004; 6(3): 177 - 185. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Asai and K. Shingu Time-Related Cuff Pressures of the Laryngeal Tube With and Without the Use of Nitrous Oxide Anesth. Analg., June 1, 2004; 98(6): 1803 - 1806. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|