2002Anesthesia & AnalgesiaRequires access

A Comparison of the Laryngeal Tube with the Laryngeal Mask Airway During Routine Surgical Procedures

Hartmut Ocker, Volker Wenzel, P. Schmucker, Markus Steinfath, Volker Dörges

Open publisher page 69 citations

Abstract

UNLABELLED: The laryngeal mask airway (LMA; Laryngeal Mask Company, Henley-on-Thames, UK) is an established airway device, whereas the laryngeal tube (LT) is relatively new and therefore not as well investigated. Therefore, the purpose of the present prospective, randomized, controlled trial was to compare the LT with the LMA in routine clinical practice. In 50 patients undergoing general anesthesia for minor routine surgery, standardized anesthesia was induced and maintained with alfentanil and propofol. Patients were randomized to controlled ventilation (fraction of inspired oxygen = 0.4; fraction of inspired nitrous oxide = 0.6; tidal volume = 7 mL/kg; respiratory rate = 10 breaths/min) with the LT (n = 25) or the LMA (n = 25). Oxygen saturation was recorded before the induction of anesthesia and after the administration of oxygen. After 2 and 10 min of ventilation with the LT or LMA, oxygen saturation, end-expiratory carbon dioxide, expiratory tidal volume, and peak airway pressure were recorded. Capillary blood gas samples were taken before the induction of anesthesia and after 10 min of ventilation. Time of insertion and airway leak pressure of each device were measured. The time of insertion was comparable with both devices (LT versus LMA, median 21 s versus 19 s; P = not significant). Blood gas samples and ventilation variables revealed sufficient ventilation and oxygenation with either device (P = not significant). Peak airway pressure (LT, 17 +/- 3 cm H(2)O; LMA, 15 +/- 3 cm H(2)O) and airway leak pressure (LT, 36 +/- 3 cm H(2)O; LMA, 22 +/- 3 cm H(2)O) were significantly (P < 0.05) higher when using the LT compared with the LMA. In conclusion, using the LT and LMA resulted in comparable ventilation and oxygenation variables in this model of ASA physical status I and II patients undergoing routine surgical procedures. The newly developed LT may be a simple alternative device to secure the airway. IMPLICATIONS: The laryngeal tube, a newly developed airway device, and the laryngeal mask airway were used to ventilate patients in the operating room. Both airway devices proved to be effective and safe; however, the laryngeal tube allowed greater airway pressure during ventilation.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

UNLABELLED: The laryngeal mask airway (LMA; Laryngeal Mask Company, Henley-on-Thames, UK) is an established airway device, whereas the laryngeal tube (LT) is relatively new and therefore not as well investigated. Therefore, the purpose of the present prospective, randomized, controlled trial was to compare the LT with the LMA in routine clinical practice. In 50 patients undergoing general anesthesia for minor routine surgery, standardized anesthesia was induced and maintained with alfentanil and propofol. Patients were randomized to controlled ventilation (fraction of inspired oxygen = 0.4; fraction of inspired nitrous oxide = 0.6; tidal volume = 7 mL/kg; respiratory rate = 10 breaths/min) with the LT (n = 25) or the LMA (n = 25). Oxygen saturation was recorded before the induction of anesthesia and after the administration of oxygen. After 2 and 10 min of ventilation with the LT or LMA, oxygen saturation, end-expiratory carbon dioxide, expiratory tidal volume, and peak airway pressure were recorded. Capillary blood gas samples were taken before the induction of anesthesia and after 10 min of ventilation. Time of insertion and airway leak pressure of each device were measured. The time of insertion was comparable with both devices (LT versus LMA, median 21 s versus 19 s; P = not significant). Blood gas samples and ventilation variables revealed sufficient ventilation and oxygenation with either device (P = not significant). Peak airway pressure (LT, 17 +/- 3 cm H(2)O; LMA, 15 +/- 3 cm H(2)O) and airway leak pressure (LT, 36 +/- 3 cm H(2)O; LMA, 22 +/- 3 cm H(2)O) were significantly (P < 0.05) higher when using the LT compared with the LMA. In conclusion, using the LT and LMA resulted in comparable ventilation and oxygenation variables in this model of ASA physical status I and II patients undergoing routine surgical procedures. The newly developed LT may be a simple alternative device to secure the airway. IMPLICATIONS: The laryngeal tube, a newly developed airway device, and the laryngeal mask airway were used to ventilate patients in the operating room. Both airway devices proved to be effective and safe; however, the laryngeal tube allowed greater airway pressure during ventilation.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 69 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

UNLABELLED: The laryngeal mask airway (LMA; Laryngeal Mask Company, Henley-on-Thames, UK) is an established airway device, whereas the laryngeal tube (LT) is relatively new and therefore not as well investigated. Therefore, the purpose of the present prospective, randomized, controlled trial was to compare the LT with the LMA in routine clinical practice. In 50 patients undergoing general anesthesia for minor routine surgery, standardized anesthesia was induced and maintained with alfentanil and propofol. Patients were randomized to controlled ventilation (fraction of inspired oxygen = 0.4; fraction of inspired nitrous oxide = 0.6; tidal volume = 7 mL/kg; respiratory rate = 10 breaths/min) with the LT (n = 25) or the LMA (n = 25). Oxygen saturation was recorded before the induction of anesthesia and after the administration of oxygen. After 2 and 10 min of ventilation with the LT or LMA, oxygen saturation, end-expiratory carbon dioxide, expiratory tidal volume, and peak airway pressure were recorded. Capillary blood gas samples were taken before the induction of anesthesia and after 10 min of ventilation. Time of insertion and airway leak pressure of each device were measured. The time of insertion was comparable with both devices (LT versus LMA, median 21 s versus 19 s; P = not significant). Blood gas samples and ventilation variables revealed sufficient ventilation and oxygenation with either device (P = not significant). Peak airway pressure (LT, 17 +/- 3 cm H(2)O; LMA, 15 +/- 3 cm H(2)O) and airway leak pressure (LT, 36 +/- 3 cm H(2)O; LMA, 22 +/- 3 cm H(2)O) were significantly (P < 0.05) higher when using the LT compared with the LMA. In conclusion, using the LT and LMA resulted in comparable ventilation and oxygenation variables in this model of ASA physical status I and II patients undergoing routine surgical procedures. The newly developed LT may be a simple alternative device to secure the airway. IMPLICATIONS: The laryngeal tube, a newly developed airway device, and the laryngeal mask airway were used to ventilate patients in the operating room. Both airway devices proved to be effective and safe; however, the laryngeal tube allowed greater airway pressure during ventilation.

Key concepts: Medicine, Anesthesia, Laryngeal mask airway, Laryngeal Masks, Propofol, Mascara, Tracheal tube, Airway

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A Comparison of the Laryngeal Tube with the Laryngeal Mask Airway During Routine Surgical Procedures — Research Paper | ScholarLens