We have located links that may give you full text access.
CLINICAL TRIAL
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Comparison of the standard laryngeal mask airway and the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in obese patients.
British Journal of Anaesthesia 2003 March
BACKGROUND: The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) may have advantages over the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) in obese patients. We tested this hypothesis in a clinical setting.
METHODS: Sixty obese patients (BMI >30) were randomized to receive mechanical ventilation (tidal volume 7 ml kg(-1), PEEP 10 cm H(2)O), through either the PLMA or the LMA. A gastric tube was used in all patients. Cuff pressure was set at 60 cm H(2)O and increased progressively until excessive leak occurred. The incidence of sore throat was assessed at recovery and after 1 week.
RESULTS: The mean leak fraction was 6.1 (SD 2.9)% with the LMA and 6.4 (3.5)% with the PLMA (P=0.721). With the PLMA, with no sign of ventilation problems, the drainage tube was not patent in three patients. The cuff pressure was >100 cm H(2)O in 38% of the LMA group and 7% of the PLMA group (P=0.05). The incidence of sore throat was similar in both groups and it was similarly scored in the recovery room and 1 week after surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: Both the PLMA and the LMA can be used for mechanical ventilation of obese patients. The patency of the PLMA drainage tube needs to be checked constantly even when an optimal airtight seal is present. In obese patients the LMA requires a greater cuff pressure than the PLMA, but sore throat is not related to the cuff pressure. Sore throat assessment in the recovery room appears as reliable as assessment later.
METHODS: Sixty obese patients (BMI >30) were randomized to receive mechanical ventilation (tidal volume 7 ml kg(-1), PEEP 10 cm H(2)O), through either the PLMA or the LMA. A gastric tube was used in all patients. Cuff pressure was set at 60 cm H(2)O and increased progressively until excessive leak occurred. The incidence of sore throat was assessed at recovery and after 1 week.
RESULTS: The mean leak fraction was 6.1 (SD 2.9)% with the LMA and 6.4 (3.5)% with the PLMA (P=0.721). With the PLMA, with no sign of ventilation problems, the drainage tube was not patent in three patients. The cuff pressure was >100 cm H(2)O in 38% of the LMA group and 7% of the PLMA group (P=0.05). The incidence of sore throat was similar in both groups and it was similarly scored in the recovery room and 1 week after surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: Both the PLMA and the LMA can be used for mechanical ventilation of obese patients. The patency of the PLMA drainage tube needs to be checked constantly even when an optimal airtight seal is present. In obese patients the LMA requires a greater cuff pressure than the PLMA, but sore throat is not related to the cuff pressure. Sore throat assessment in the recovery room appears as reliable as assessment later.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app