We have located links that may give you full text access.
Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Gas leak and gastric insufflation during controlled ventilation: face mask versus laryngeal mask airway.
Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 1998 March
PURPOSE: To compare two airway management techniques, face mask (FM) with oropharyngeal airway and laryngeal mask airway (LMA), with respect to the effectiveness of positive pressure ventilation and airway maintenance.
METHODS: After induction of anaesthesia, two airway management techniques (FM or LMA) and three peak pressures (20, 25 and 30 cm H2O) were randomly applied during controlled ventilation in 60 patients. Data collected included inspiratory and expiratory volumes and presence of gastro-oesophageal insufflation. Leak was calculated by subtracting the expiratory from the inspiratory volume, expressed as a fraction of the inspiratory volume.
RESULTS: Expiratory volumes (mean +/- SD) at 20, 25 and 30 cm H2O for LMA ventilation were 893 +/- 260, 986 +/- 276 and 1006 +/- 262 respectively, and for FM ventilation 964 +/- 264, 1100 +/- 268 and 1116 +/- 261. Leak fractions at 20, 25 and 30 cm H2O for LMA ventilation were 0.21 +/- 0.15, 0.24 +/- 0.18 and 0.26 +/- 0.18 respectively, and for FM ventilation 0.14 +/- 0.09, 0.14 +/- 0.09 and 0.12 +/- 0.08. The frequency of gastro-oesophageal insufflation was 1.6%, 5% and 5% for the LMA and 5%, 15% and 26.6% for the FM for ventilation pressures of 20, 25 and 30 cm H2O respectively which was greater with LMA use.
CONCLUSION: Ventilation was adequate in all patients using both techniques. Leak was pressure dependent and greater with LMA use. Most of the leak was vented to the atmosphere via the pharynx. Gastro-oesophageal insufflation was more frequent with ventilation using the face mask. LMA use with positive pressure ventilation would appear to be a better airway management method than the face mask.
METHODS: After induction of anaesthesia, two airway management techniques (FM or LMA) and three peak pressures (20, 25 and 30 cm H2O) were randomly applied during controlled ventilation in 60 patients. Data collected included inspiratory and expiratory volumes and presence of gastro-oesophageal insufflation. Leak was calculated by subtracting the expiratory from the inspiratory volume, expressed as a fraction of the inspiratory volume.
RESULTS: Expiratory volumes (mean +/- SD) at 20, 25 and 30 cm H2O for LMA ventilation were 893 +/- 260, 986 +/- 276 and 1006 +/- 262 respectively, and for FM ventilation 964 +/- 264, 1100 +/- 268 and 1116 +/- 261. Leak fractions at 20, 25 and 30 cm H2O for LMA ventilation were 0.21 +/- 0.15, 0.24 +/- 0.18 and 0.26 +/- 0.18 respectively, and for FM ventilation 0.14 +/- 0.09, 0.14 +/- 0.09 and 0.12 +/- 0.08. The frequency of gastro-oesophageal insufflation was 1.6%, 5% and 5% for the LMA and 5%, 15% and 26.6% for the FM for ventilation pressures of 20, 25 and 30 cm H2O respectively which was greater with LMA use.
CONCLUSION: Ventilation was adequate in all patients using both techniques. Leak was pressure dependent and greater with LMA use. Most of the leak was vented to the atmosphere via the pharynx. Gastro-oesophageal insufflation was more frequent with ventilation using the face mask. LMA use with positive pressure ventilation would appear to be a better airway management method than the face mask.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
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