BJA Advance Access published online on May 27, 2005
British Journal of Anaesthesia, doi:10.1093/bja/aei167
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 Royal United Hospital, Combe Park, Bath BA1 3NG, UK
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. Background. The Laryngeal Tube Sonda® (LTS) is a supraglottic airway which, like the ProSeal® Laryngeal Mask Airway (PLMA), incorporates a drain tube. We compared the performances of LTS and PLMA during controlled ventilation anaesthesia. Methods. The devices were studied in 32 ventilated patients by randomized crossover trial. Primary outcome was airway seal pressure. Secondary outcomes included insertion success and time, manipulations required, ventilation quality, peak and plateau airway pressures, ability to pass a gastric tube and fibreoptic laryngeal view. Results. The PLMA produced a higher seal pressure (median values, PLMA 26 cm H2O and LTS 24 cm H2O, P<0.01). First-attempt insertion succeeded with PLMA 28 times and LTS 22 times (P>0.05). The PLMA required fewer manipulations (P<0.05) in fewer patients (P<0.05) and took less time to insert (P<0.01). All PLMA patients and 22 LTS patients achieved optimal ventilation (P<0.01). Peak airway pressure was lower with the PLMA than with the LTS (P<0.01). The vocal cords were visible through the PLMA in 32 patients and through the LTS in nine patients (P<0.001). The laryngeal view was superior through the PLMA (P<0.001). Conclusion. The difference in seal pressure between devices was clinically unimportant. However, the LTS had an unexpectedly high failure rate. PLMA performance exceeded LTS performance in many clinically useful measures. The PLMA has greater clinical utility than the LTS during controlled ventilation.
Accepted May 6, 2005
Clinical Investigation
Randomized crossover comparison of ProSeal® Laryngeal Mask Airway with Laryngeal Tube Sonda® during anaesthesia with controlled ventilation
T. M. Cook, E-mail: timcook{at}ukgateway.net
Abstract 
Declaration of interest. T.M. Cook has received honoraria for lecturing from Intavent Orthofix and the Laryngeal Mask Company, the distributors of the ProSeal® Laryngeal Mask Airway.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  V. Uppal, S. Gangaiah, G. Fletcher, and J. Kinsella Randomized crossover comparison between the i-gel and the LMA-Unique in anaesthetized, paralysed adults Br. J. Anaesth., December 1, 2009; 103(6): 882 - 885. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Martin and D. J. Buggy New airway equipment: opportunities for enhanced safety Br. J. Anaesth., June 1, 2009; 102(6): 734 - 738. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S.-H. Park, S.-H. Han, S.-H. Do, J.-W. Kim, and J.-H. Kim The Influence of Head and Neck Position on the Oropharyngeal Leak Pressure and Cuff Position of Three Supraglottic Airway Devices Anesth. Analg., January 1, 2009; 108(1): 112 - 117. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Asai and K. Shingu The laryngeal tube Br. J. Anaesth., December 1, 2005; 95(6): 729 - 736. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|