2000AnaesthesiaRequires access

Dimensions of intubating laryngeal mask airway tracheal tube

Jee Keem Low

Open publisher page 1 citations

Abstract

I read with interest the recent article demonstrating the ease of insertion of an intubating laryngeal mask (ILMA) tracheal tube compared with a standard Portex tracheal tube in patients having an oral fibreoptic intubation (Lucas & Yentis. Anaesthesia 2000; 55: 358–61). When performing fibreoptic intubation there are important differences between the ILMA tracheal tube ( Table 1) and the more commonly used 6.0 or 6.5 reinforced tracheal tube that are worth considering. Nasal intubation is often preferred in these patients and these differences could be significant when using this route. The larger external diameter could make nasal intubation more traumatic and possibly more difficult. At present, the size 7.0 ILMA tracheal tube is the smallest ILMA tube available. A smaller ILMA tracheal tube may prove to be superior to the reinforced tracheal tube but this remains to be proved.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

I read with interest the recent article demonstrating the ease of insertion of an intubating laryngeal mask (ILMA) tracheal tube compared with a standard Portex tracheal tube in patients having an oral fibreoptic intubation (Lucas & Yentis. Anaesthesia 2000; 55: 358–61). When performing fibreoptic intubation there are important differences between the ILMA tracheal tube ( Table 1) and the more commonly used 6.0 or 6.5 reinforced tracheal tube that are worth considering. Nasal intubation is often preferred in these patients and these differences could be significant when using this route. The larger external diameter could make nasal intubation more traumatic and possibly more difficult. At present, the size 7.0 ILMA tracheal tube is the smallest ILMA tube available. A smaller ILMA tracheal tube may prove to be superior to the reinforced tracheal tube but this remains to be proved.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

I read with interest the recent article demonstrating the ease of insertion of an intubating laryngeal mask (ILMA) tracheal tube compared with a standard Portex tracheal tube in patients having an oral fibreoptic intubation (Lucas & Yentis. Anaesthesia 2000; 55: 358–61). When performing fibreoptic intubation there are important differences between the ILMA tracheal tube ( Table 1) and the more commonly used 6.0 or 6.5 reinforced tracheal tube that are worth considering. Nasal intubation is often preferred in these patients and these differences could be significant when using this route. The larger external diameter could make nasal intubation more traumatic and possibly more difficult. At present, the size 7.0 ILMA tracheal tube is the smallest ILMA tube available. A smaller ILMA tracheal tube may prove to be superior to the reinforced tracheal tube but this remains to be proved.

Key concepts: Medicine, Tracheal tube, Intubation, Tube (container), Tracheal intubation, Mascara, Anesthesia, Larynx

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Dimensions of intubating laryngeal mask airway tracheal tube — Research Paper | ScholarLens