Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Comparison of the single use and reusable intubating laryngeal mask airway.

Anaesthesia 2007 April
We compared the times to intubate the trachea using the single use (Group S) and reusable (Group C) intubating laryngeal mask (ILMA(TM)), in 84 healthy patients with normal airways undergoing elective gynaecological surgery. There was no significant difference in the ease of insertion of the ILMA or the tracheal tube, or time to successful insertion (Group S, 101.4 s (SD 63.2) vs Group C, 90.4 s (SD 46.1), p = 0.366). The ILMA was successfully inserted on first attempt in 63% of Group S patients and in 68% of Group C patients. After one or two attempts the overall success rate for both groups was 93%. There was a failure to insert the ILMA in two patients in each group. There was no difference in side-effects (desaturation S(p)o(2) < 95%, bleeding, oesophageal intubation, lip, dental or mucosal injury, or sore throat postoperatively). We conclude that the disposable ILMA is an acceptable alternative to the reusable ILMA.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

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 Toggle icon

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