Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:34:59.386Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of the laryngeal mask (LMA™) and laryngeal tube (LT®) with the new perilaryngeal airway (CobraPLA®) in short surgical procedures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2006

A. Turan ,
G. Kaya ,
O. Koyuncu ,
B. Karamanlioglu  and
Z. Pamukçu
A. Turan
Affiliation:
Trakya University, Department of Anaesthesiology, Edirne, Turkey
G. Kaya
Affiliation:
Trakya University, Department of Anaesthesiology, Edirne, Turkey
O. Koyuncu
Affiliation:
Trakya University, Department of Anaesthesiology, Edirne, Turkey
B. Karamanlioglu
Affiliation:
Trakya University, Department of Anaesthesiology, Edirne, Turkey
Z. Pamukçu
Affiliation:
Trakya University, Department of Anaesthesiology, Edirne, Turkey
Get access

Extract

Summary

Background and objective: We compared the laryngeal mask airway (LMA™) and the laryngeal tube (LT®) with the newly introduced perilaryngeal airway (CobraPLA®, PLA) with regard to haemodynamic responses induced by airway insertion, clinical performance and occurrence of postoperative sore throat after short surgical procedures. Methods: After premedication, 90 ASA I–II patients awaiting short surgical procedures were randomized to receive, LMA, LT or PLA. Anaesthesia was induced with intravenous propofol (2.5 mg kg−1) and mivacurium (0.2 mg kg−1). Number of attempts, time of insertion of the device, any other unwanted effect, mean aterial pressure, heart rate, oxygen saturation and end-tidal carbon dioxide were recorded. At the end of surgery, the cuff of the device was immediately deflated and the airway device was removed. The device was examined and noted for the presence of visible blood. Patients were asked to rate their throat soreness, dysphonia and dysphagia 1 and 24 h postoperatively. Results: There were no differences in haemodynamic variables. Insertion times for the devices were similar (LMA: 20 ± 11 s, LT: 19 ± 14 s and PLA: 21 ± 12 s.) The success rates at first insertion were lower in the (LMA group (57%) when compared with the PLA (97%, P < 0.05). The number and type of airway interventions for achieving an effective airway were similar. When the airways were removed 50% of the PLA devices had positive blood traces, while only 17% of the LMA and LT devices had positive blood traces (P < 0.01). Fifty percent of the patients suffered from a sore throat in the PLA group, which was significantly higher than in the LMA and LT groups (P < 0.05). Conclusion: We conclude that haemodynamic, ventilation and oxygenation variables throughout the surgery were similar with, LMA, LT and PLA, but LT and PLA were easier to insert; LMA and LT caused less mucosal trauma.

Keywords

ANAESTHESIA GENERALLARYNGEAL MASKSHAEMODYNAMIC PHENOMENA, blood pressure, heart rate, oxygenationADVERSE EFFECTS
Type
Original Article
Information
European Journal of Anaesthesiology , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , March 2006 , pp. 234 - 238
Copyright
© 2006 European Society of Anaesthesiology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Verghese C, Brimacombe JR. Survey of laryngeal mask airway usage in 11 910 patients: safety and efficacy for conventional and nonconventional usage. Anesth Analg 1996; 82: 129–133.Google Scholar
Brain AI. The laryngeal mask: a new concept in airway management. Br J Anaesth 1983; 55: 801–805.Google Scholar
Dorges V, Ocker H, Wenzel V, Schumucker P. The laryngeal tube: a new simple airway device. Anesth Analg 2000; 90: 1220–1222.Google Scholar
Agrò I, Barzoi G, Carassiti M, Gallì B. Getting the tube in the oesophagus and oxygen in the trachea: preliminary results with the new supraglottic device (Cobra™) in 28 anaesthetised patients. Anaesthesia 2003; 58: 920–921.Google Scholar
Akca O, Wadhwa A, Sengupta P et al. The new perilaryngeal airway (CobraPLA) is as efficient as the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) but provides better airway sealing pressures. Anesth Analg 2004; 99: 272–278.Google Scholar
Agrò I, Barzoi G, Gallì B. The CobraPLA in 110 anaesthetized and paralysed patients: what size to choose? Br J Anaesth 2004; 92: 777–778.Google Scholar
Brimacombe J, Keller C. The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: a randomized, crossover study with the standard laryngeal mask airway in paralyzed, anesthetized patients. Anesthesiology 2000; 93: 104–109.Google Scholar
Wakeling HG, Butler PJ, Baxter PJC. The laryngeal mask airway: a comparison between two insertion techniques. Anesth Analg 1997; 85: 687–690.Google Scholar
Dingley J, Whitehead MJ, Wareham K. A comparative study of the incidence of sore throat with the laryngeal mask airway. Anaesthesia 1994; 49: 251–254.Google Scholar
Brimacombe J, Holyoake L, Keller C et al. Pharyngolaryngeal, neck, and jaw discomfort after anesthesia with the face mask and laryngeal mask airway at high and low cuff volumes in males and females. Anesthesiology 2000; 93: 26–31.Google Scholar
Mizutamari E, Yano T, Ushijima K et al. A comparison of postoperative sore throat after use of laryngeal mask airway and tracheal tube. J Anesth 2004; 18: 151–157.Google Scholar
Casati A, Cappelleri G, Fanelli G et al. The pressor response after laryngeal mask or cuffed oropharyngeal airway insertion. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1999; 43: 1053–1056.Google Scholar
Braude N, Clements EA, Hodges UM, Andrews BP. The pressor response and laryngeal mask insertion: a comparison with tracheal intubation. Anaesthesia 1989; 44: 551–554.Google Scholar
Casati A, Vinciguerra F, Spreafico E et al. Cardiovascular changes after extraglottic airway insertion: a prospective, randomized comparison between the laryngeal mask or the new PAX press. Anesthesiology 2003; 98: 354–358.Google Scholar
Kanaya N, Hirata N, Kurosawa S, Nakayama M, Namiki A. Differential effects of propofol and sevoflurane on heart rate variability. Anesthesiology 2003; 98: 34–40.Google Scholar