A Multicenter Study Comparing the ProSeal TMand Classic TMLaryngeal Mask Airway in Anesthetized, Nonparalyzed Patients
Top Cited Papers
- 1 February 2002
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Anesthesiology
- Vol. 96 (2) , 289-295
- https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200202000-00011
Abstract
Background: The laryngeal mask airway ProSeal (PLMA), a new laryngeal mask device, was compared with the laryngeal mask airway Classic (LMA) with respect to: (1) insertion success rates and times; (2) efficacy of seal; (3) fiberoptically determined anatomic position; (4) orogastric tube insertion success rates and times; (5) total intraoperative complications; and (6) postoperative sore throat in nonparalyzed adult patients undergoing general anesthesia, hypothesizing that these would be different. Methods: Three hundred eighty-four nonparalyzed anesthetized adult patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II) were randomly allocated to the PLMA or LMA for airway management. In addition, 50% of patients were randomized for orogastric tube placement. Unblinded observers collected intraoperative data, and blinded observers collected postoperative data. Results: First-attempt insertion success rates (91 vs. 82%, P = 0.015) were higher for the LMA, but after three attempts success rates were similar (LMA, 100%; PLMA, 98%). Less time was required to achieve an effective airway with the LMA (31 +/- 30 vs. 41 +/- 49 s; P = 0.02). The PLMA formed a more effective seal (27 +/- 7 vs. 22 +/- 6 cm H2O; P < 0.0001). Fiberoptically determined anatomic position was better with the LMA (P < 0.0001). Orogastric tube insertion was more successful after two attempts (88 vs. 55%; P < 0.0001) and quicker (22 +/- 18 vs. 38 +/- 56 s) with the PLMA. During maintenance, the PLMA failed twice (leak, stridor) and the LMA failed once (laryngospasm). Total intraoperative complications were similar for both groups. The incidence of postoperative sore throat was similar. Conclusion: In anesthetized, nonparalyzed patients, the LMA is easier and quicker to insert, but the PLMA forms a better seal and facilitates easier and quicker orogastric tube placement. The incidence of total intraoperative complications and postoperative sore throat are similar.Keywords
This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit:
- Gastric Insufflation with the ProSeal Laryngeal MaskAnesthesia & Analgesia, 2001
- A Fibreoptic Scoring System to Assess the Position of Laryngeal Mask Airway Devices. Interobserver Variability and a Comparison Between the Standard, Flexible and Intubating Laryngeal Mask AirwaysAINS - Anästhesiologie · Intensivmedizin · Notfallmedizin · Schmerztherapie, 2000
- Mucosal pressure and oropharyngeal leak pressure with the ProSeal versus laryngeal mask airway in anaesthetized paralysed patients †British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2000
- Pharyngolaryngeal, Neck, and Jaw Discomfort after Anesthesia with the Face Mask and Laryngeal Mask Airway at High and Low Cuff Volumes in Males and FemalesAnesthesiology, 2000
- The ProSeal Laryngeal Mask AirwayAnesthesiology, 2000
- The LMA ‘ProSeal’—a laryngeal mask with an oesophageal ventBritish Journal of Anaesthesia, 2000
- Comparison of four methods for assessing airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in adult patientsBritish Journal of Anaesthesia, 1999
- A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Cuffed Oropharyngeal Airway and the Laryngeal Mask Airway in Spontaneously Breathing Anesthetized AdultsAnesthesiology, 1998
- Relationship between Pressure-volume Curves and a Fiberscopic Assessment of Positioning of the Laryngeal Mask Airway.THE JOURNAL OF JAPAN SOCIETY FOR CLINICAL ANESTHESIA, 1992
- Occurrence of gastroesophageal reflux on induction of anaesthesia does not correlate with the volume of gastric contentsCanadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie, 1990