240 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10391603)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. The laryngeal mask airway Supreme--a single use laryngeal mask airway with an oesophageal vent. A randomised, cross-over study with the laryngeal mask airway ProSeal in paralysed, anaesthetised patients.
Eschertzhuber S; Brimacombe J; Hohlrieder M; Keller C
Anaesthesia; 2009 Jan; 64(1):79-83. PubMed ID: 19087011
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. A comparison of the reinforced and standard laryngeal mask airway: ease of insertion and the influence of head and neck position on oropharyngeal leak pressure and intracuff pressure.
Buckham M; Brooker M; Brimacombe J; Keller C
Anaesth Intensive Care; 1999 Dec; 27(6):628-31. PubMed ID: 10631418
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Positive pressure ventilation with the size 5 laryngeal mask.
Brimacombe JR
J Clin Anesth; 1997 Mar; 9(2):113-7. PubMed ID: 9075035
[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. The influence of mouth opening on oropharyngeal leak pressure, intracuff pressure, and cuff position with the laryngeal mask airway.
Sanuki T; Sugioka S; Hirokane M; Son H; Uda R; Akatsuka M; Kotani J
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2010 May; 68(5):1038-42. PubMed ID: 20223572
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. A fibreoptic scoring system to assess the position of laryngeal mask airway devices. Interobserver variability and a comparison between the standard, flexible and intubating laryngeal mask airways.
Keller C; Brimacombe J; Pühringer F
Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther; 2000 Nov; 35(11):692-4. PubMed ID: 11130130
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of laryngeal mask airway (LMA)- Proseal and the LMA-Classic in ventilated children receiving neuromuscular blockade.
Lardner DR; Cox RG; Ewen A; Dickinson D
Can J Anaesth; 2008 Jan; 55(1):29-35. PubMed ID: 18166745
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
