140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10201670)
1. 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]
2. A comparison of pharyngeal mucosal pressure and airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized adult patients.
Brimacombe J; Keller C
Anesth Analg; 1998 Dec; 87(6):1379-82. PubMed ID: 9842832
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Pharyngeal mucosal pressure and perfusion: a fiberoptic evaluation of the posterior pharynx in anesthetized adult patients with a modified cuffed oropharyngeal airway.
Brimacombe J; Keller C; Pühringer F
Anesthesiology; 1999 Dec; 91(6):1661-5. PubMed ID: 10598608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Calculated vs measured pharyngeal mucosal pressures with the laryngeal mask airway during cuff inflation: assessment of four locations.
Keller C; Brimacombe J; Benzer A
Br J Anaesth; 1999 Mar; 82(3):399-401. PubMed ID: 10434824
[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. 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]
11. Influence of neuromuscular block, mode of ventilation and respiratory cycle on pharyngeal mucosal pressures with the laryngeal mask airway.
Keller C; Brimacombe J
Br J Anaesth; 1999 Sep; 83(3):480-2. PubMed ID: 10655926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Mucosal pressure and oropharyngeal leak pressure with the ProSeal versus laryngeal mask airway in anaesthetized paralysed patients.
Keller C; Brimacombe J
Br J Anaesth; 2000 Aug; 85(2):262-6. PubMed ID: 10992836
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Positive pressure ventilation during fibreoptic intubation: comparison of the laryngeal mask airway, intubating laryngeal mask and endoscopy mask techniques.
Aoyama K; Yasunaga E; Takenaka I; Kadoya T; Sata T; Shigematsu A
Br J Anaesth; 2002 Feb; 88(2):246-54. PubMed ID: 11878657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Large cuff volumes impede posterior pharyngeal mucosal perfusion with the laryngeal tube airway.
Brimacombe J; Keller C; Roth W; Loeckinger A
Can J Anaesth; 2002 Dec; 49(10):1084-7. PubMed ID: 12477684
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Directly measured mucosal pressures produced by the i-gel™ and Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme™ in paralysed anaesthetised patients.
Eschertzhuber S; Brimacombe J; Kaufmann M; Keller C; Tiefenthaler W
Anaesthesia; 2012 Apr; 67(4):407-10. PubMed ID: 22324968
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Intubating laryngeal mask airway size selection: a randomized triple crossover study in paralyzed, anesthetized male and female adult patients.
Kihara S; Yaguchi Y; Brimacombe J; Watanabe S; Taguchi N; Hosoya N
Anesth Analg; 2002 Apr; 94(4):1023-7, table of contents. PubMed ID: 11916817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The laryngeal mask airway Unique versus the Soft Seal laryngeal mask: a randomized, crossover study in paralyzed, anesthetized patients.
Brimacombe J; von Goedecke A; Keller C; Brimacombe L; Brimacombe M
Anesth Analg; 2004 Nov; 99(5):1560-1563. PubMed ID: 15502065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
