Skip Navigation



BJA Advance Access published online on September 14, 2007
British Journal of Anaesthesia, doi:10.1093/bja/aem260
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
99/5/734    most recent
aem260v1
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 Mihai, R.
Right arrow Articles by Cook, T. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mihai, R.
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 2007. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Evaluation of the revised laryngeal tube suction: the laryngeal tube suction II in 100 patients

R. Mihai, G. Knottenbelt and T. M. Cook*

Department of Anaesthesia, Royal United Hospital, Bath, UK

* Corresponding author. E-mail: timcook007{at}googlemail.com

Background: We prospectively assessed the performance of the laryngeal tube suction mark II (LTS II).

Methods: LTS II was assessed during controlled and spontaneous ventilation during total i.v. anaesthesia. Ventilation adequacy, functional and anatomical positioning and airway seal were evaluated.

Results: One hundred healthy patients (30F:70M) aged 18–85-yr-old were studied. Insertion of the LTS II was successful in 71 at first attempt, in 24 at second attempt and in five at third/fourth attempt. Median insertion time was 15 s (range 5–120 s). Temporary obstruction occurred in six patients. A median of one manipulation per patient was required to establish an airway (range 0–5). During maintenance, temporary airway obstruction occurred in eight patients. Use of the device was abandoned once during insertion, once during maintenance and once because of complications unrelated to the study. The airway was clear in 89 of 97 patients during maintenance and partially obstructed in eight. Median seal pressure was 29.5 (range 15–85) cm H2O. A gastric tube was passed via the posterior channel in 97 of 99 patients. The glottis was visible using a fibrescope passed via the device in 51% of patients. Via the drain tube the upper oesophagus was visible in 22% and this was open in 50%. Blood was visible on the device after removal in 12 patients. After the operation 14 patients reported mild sore throat.

Discussion: The LTS II appears to be an improvement on its predecessor and merits further investigation comparing it with its competitors during use for anaesthesia and emergency airway management.

Keywords: airway, patency, complications; equipment masks, anaesthesia


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.