Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T01:22:17.226Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of the laryngeal tube-S™ and Proseal™ laryngeal mask during outpatient surgical procedures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2007

F. Zand ,
A. Amini ,
S. E. Sadeghi ,
M. Gureishi  and
A. Chohedri
F. Zand*
Affiliation:
Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Namazi Hospital, Department of Anaesthesiology, Shiraz, Iran
A. Amini
Affiliation:
Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Namazi Hospital, Department of Anaesthesiology, Shiraz, Iran
S. E. Sadeghi
Affiliation:
Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Namazi Hospital, Department of Anaesthesiology, Shiraz, Iran
M. Gureishi
Affiliation:
Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Namazi Hospital, Department of Anaesthesiology, Shiraz, Iran
A. Chohedri
Affiliation:
Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Namazi Hospital, Department of Anaesthesiology, Shiraz, Iran
*
Correspondence to: Farid Zand, Department of Anaesthesiology, Namazi Hospital, 71937-11351 Shiraz, Iran. E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: +98 711 626 8071; Fax: +98 711 230 7072
Get access

Summary

Background and objective

The Laryngeal Tube Sonda® (LTS) and the ProSeal® Laryngeal Mask Airway (PLMA) are two new devices introduced for maintaining the airway during controlled ventilation under general anaesthesia. The present investigation compared their performance in a randomized controlled study.

Methods

One hundred ASA I–II patients, aged 18–60 yr undergoing elective minor surgery, were randomized to receive either an LTS (n = 50) or PLMA (n = 50) for airway management. After induction of general anaesthesia, the devices were inserted, its correct placement was verified and airway leak pressure was measured. Ease of insertion, quality of airway seal, fibre-optic view and postoperative pharyngeal morbidity were examined.

Results

There were no differences in patient characteristics for both groups. First-time and second-time success rates were comparable for both groups (86 vs. 88% and 96 vs. 98% in LTS and PLMA groups, respectively). The airway of one patient in each group could not be managed with these devices after three attempts. Time until delivery of first tidal volume for LTS and PLMA was 24.5 ± 6.9 and 28.8 ± 10.3 s. Fixation and manipulation time was 54.9 ± 15.2 and 73.2 ± 25 s, respectively (P < 0.05). Airway seal pressure (cm H2O) for LTS and PLMA was 20 ± 8.6 and 24.1 ± 10.8, respectively (P = 0.04). Patients were questioned on a variety of postoperative pharyngeal morbidities. Only hoarseness was more frequent in the LTS group.

Conclusions

Both devices provide a secure airway, are similar in clinical utility and are easy to insert. Better airway seal was detected in the PLMA group.

Keywords

ANAESTHETIC EQUIPMENTLARYNGEAL MASKSINTUBATION INTRATRACHEAL
Type
Original Article
Information
European Journal of Anaesthesiology , Volume 24 , Issue 10 , October 2007 , pp. 847 - 851
Copyright
Copyright © European Society of Anaesthesiology 2007

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

1.Cook, TM, Nolan, JP, Verghese, C et al. . Randomized crossover comparison of the proseal with the classic laryngeal mask airway in unparalysed anaesthetized patients. Br J Anaesth 2002; 88: 527–533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Gaitini, LA, Vaida, SJ, Somri, M, Yanovski, B, Ben-David, B, Hagberg, CA. A randomized controlled trial comparing the Proseal Laryngeal Mask Airway with the Laryngeal Tube Suction in mechanically ventilated patients. Anesthesiology 2004; 101: 316–320.Google Scholar
3.Cook, TM, Cranshaw, J. Randomized crossover comparison of ProSeal® Laryngeal Mask Airway with laryngeal Tube Sonda® during anaesthesia with controlled ventilation. Br J Anaesth 2005; 95: 261–266.Google Scholar
4.Bein, B, Carstensen, S, Gleim, M et al. . A comparison of the proseal laryngeal mask airway, the laryngeal tube S and the oesophageal–tracheal combitube during routine surgical procedures. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2005; 22: 341–346.Google Scholar
5.Roth, H, Genzwuerker, HV, Rothhaas, A, Finties, TSchmeck J. The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway and the laryngeal tube suction for ventilation in gynecological patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2005; 22: 117–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Brain, AI, Verghese, C, Strube, PJ. The LMA ‘ProSeal’ – a laryngeal mask with an oesophageal vent. Br J Anaesth 2000; 84: 650–654.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Genzwuerker, HV, Finteis, T, Hinkelbein, J, Krieter, H. The LTS (Laryngeal Tube Suction) a new device for emergency airway management. Scand J Trauma Emerg Med 2003; 11: 125–131.Google Scholar
8.Verghese, C, Berlet, J, Kapila, A, Pollard, K. Clinical assessment of the single use laryngeal mask airway – the LMA-Unique. Br J Anaesth 1998; 80: 677–679.Google Scholar
9.Turan, A, Kaya, G, Koyuncu, O, Karamanlioglu, B, Pamukcu, Z. Comparison of the laryngeal mask (LMA™) and laryngeal tube (LT®) with the new perilaryngeal airway (cobra PLA®) in short surgical procedures. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2006; 23: 234–238.Google Scholar
10.Francksen, H, Bein, B, Cavus, E, Renner, J, Scholz, J, Steinfath, M. Comparison of LMA Unique Ambu laryngeal mask and Soft Seal laryngeal mask during routine surgical procedures. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2007; 24: 134–140.Google Scholar
11.Yavascaoglu, B, Acar, HV, Kahveci, SF, Kaya, FN, Ozcan, B. Cuffed oropharyngeal airway as a suitable alternative to the laryngeal mask airway for minor outpatient surgery. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2002; 19: 203–207.Google Scholar
12.Miller, DM, Youkhana, I, Pearce, AC. The laryngeal mask and VBM laryngeal tube compared during spontaneous ventilation. A pilot study. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2001; 18: 593–598.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Dorges, V, Ocker, H, Wenzel, V, Steinfath, M, Gerlach, K. The Laryngeal Tube S: a modified simple airway device. Anesth Analg 2003; 96: 618–621.Google Scholar
15.Brimacombe, J, Keller, C, Brimacombe, L. A comparison of the laryngeal mask airway ProSeal and the laryngeal tube airway in paralyzed anesthetized adult patients undergoing pressure-controlled ventilation. Anesth Analg 2002; 95: 770–776.Google ScholarPubMed
16.Zand, F, Amini, A. Use of the laryngeal tube-S for airway management and prevention of aspiration after a failed tracheal intubation in a parturient. Anesthesiology 2005; 102: 481–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Cook, TM, Silsby, J, Simpson, TP. Airway rescue in acute upper airway obstruction using a ProSeal Laryngeal mask airway and an Aintree catheter: a review of the ProSeal Laryngeal mask airway in the management of the difficult airway. Anaesthesia 2005; 60: 1129–1136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Keller, C, Brimacombe, J, Lirk, P, Puhringer, F. Failed obstetric tracheal intubation and postoperative respiratory support with the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway. Anesth Analg 2004; 98: 1467–1470.Google Scholar
19.Rosenblatt, WH. The use of the LMA-ProSeal in airway resuscitation. Anesth Analg 2003; 97: 1773–1775.Google Scholar