154 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10195545)
1. Do laryngeal mask airway devices attenuate liquid flow between the esophagus and pharynx? A randomized, controlled cadaver study.
Keller C; Brimacombe J; Rädler C; Pühringer F
Anesth Analg; 1999 Apr; 88(4):904-7. PubMed ID: 10195545
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Does the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway prevent aspiration of regurgitated fluid?
Keller C; Brimacombe J; Kleinsasser A; Loeckinger A
Anesth Analg; 2000 Oct; 91(4):1017-20. PubMed ID: 11004067
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Water flow between the upper esophagus and pharynx for the LMA and COPA in fresh cadavers. Laryngeal mask airway, and cuffed oropharyngeal airway.
Brimacombe J; Keller C
Can J Anaesth; 1999 Nov; 46(11):1064-6. PubMed ID: 10566928
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The influence of head and neck position on oropharyngeal leak pressure and cuff position with the flexible and the standard laryngeal mask airway.
Keller C; Brimacombe J
Anesth Analg; 1999 Apr; 88(4):913-6. PubMed ID: 10195547
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of the flexible and standard laryngeal mask airways.
Brimacombe J; Keller C
Can J Anaesth; 1999 Jun; 46(6):558-63. PubMed ID: 10391603
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The influence of the tonsillar gag on efficacy of seal, anatomic position, airway patency, and airway protection with the flexible laryngeal mask airway: a randomized, cross-over study of fresh adult cadavers.
Brimacombe JR; Keller C; Gunkel AR; Pühringer F
Anesth Analg; 1999 Jul; 89(1):181-6. PubMed ID: 10389800
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Pressures exerted against the cervical vertebrae by the standard and intubating laryngeal mask airways: a randomized, controlled, cross-over study in fresh cadavers.
Keller C; Brimacombe J; Keller K
Anesth Analg; 1999 Nov; 89(5):1296-300. PubMed ID: 10553855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Pharyngeal mucosal pressures with the laryngeal tube airway versus ProSeal laryngeal mask airway.
Keller C; Brimacombe J; Kleinsasser A; Loeckinger A
Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther; 2003 Jun; 38(6):393-6. PubMed ID: 12759874
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Mucosal pressures from the cuffed oropharyngeal airway vs the laryngeal mask airway.
Keller C; Brimacombe J
Br J Anaesth; 1999 Jun; 82(6):922-4. PubMed ID: 10562790
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [Fiberoptic determination of the position of the laryngeal mask].
Pothmann W; Füllekrug B; Schulte am Esch J
Anaesthesist; 1992 Dec; 41(12):779-84. PubMed ID: 1489077
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Laryngeal mask airway size selection in males and females: ease of insertion, oropharyngeal leak pressure, pharyngeal mucosal pressures and anatomical position.
Brimacombe J; Keller C
Br J Anaesth; 1999 May; 82(5):703-7. PubMed ID: 10536546
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: A randomized, crossover study with the standard laryngeal mask airway in paralyzed, anesthetized patients.
Brimacombe J; Keller C
Anesthesiology; 2000 Jul; 93(1):104-9. PubMed ID: 10861152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The influence of cuff volume and anatomic location on pharyngeal, esophageal, and tracheal mucosal pressures with the esophageal tracheal combitube.
Keller C; Brimacombe J; Boehler M; Loeckinger A; Puehringer F
Anesthesiology; 2002 May; 96(5):1074-7. PubMed ID: 11981145
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A comparison of seal in seven supraglottic airway devices using a cadaver model of elevated esophageal pressure.
Bercker S; Schmidbauer W; Volk T; Bogusch G; Bubser HP; Hensel M; Kerner T
Anesth Analg; 2008 Feb; 106(2):445-8, table of contents. PubMed ID: 18227299
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Prospective clinical and fiberoptic evaluation of the Supreme laryngeal mask airway.
Timmermann A; Cremer S; Eich C; Kazmaier S; Bräuer A; Graf BM; Russo SG
Anesthesiology; 2009 Feb; 110(2):262-5. PubMed ID: 19194153
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Pharyngeal mucosal pressures, airway sealing pressures, and fiberoptic position with the intubating versus the standard laryngeal mask airway.
Keller C; Brimacombe J
Anesthesiology; 1999 Apr; 90(4):1001-6. PubMed ID: 10201670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A randomised controlled trial of the effect of laryngeal mask airway manometry on postoperative sore throat in spontaneously breathing adult patients presenting for surgery at a university teaching hospital.
Waruingi D; Mung'ayi V; Gisore E; Wanyonyi S
Afr Health Sci; 2019 Mar; 19(1):1705-1715. PubMed ID: 31149001
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Effect of the laryngeal mask airway on oesophageal pH: influence of the volume and pressure inside the cuff.
Roux M; Drolet P; Girard M; Grenier Y; Petit B
Br J Anaesth; 1999 Apr; 82(4):566-9. PubMed ID: 10472224
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of mucosal pressures induced by cuffs of different airway devices.
Ulrich-Pur H; Hrska F; Krafft P; Friehs H; Wulkersdorfer B; Köstler WJ; Rabitsch W; Staudinger T; Schuster E; Frass M
Anesthesiology; 2006 May; 104(5):933-8. PubMed ID: 16645443
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A comparison of the disposable versus the reusable laryngeal mask airway in paralyzed adult patients.
Brimacombe J; Keller C; Morris R; Mecklem D
Anesth Analg; 1998 Oct; 87(4):921-4. PubMed ID: 9768795
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
