221 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10992836)
1. 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]
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. 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]
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. Stability of the LMA-ProSeal and standard laryngeal mask airway in different head and neck positions: a randomized crossover study.
Brimacombe J; Keller C
Eur J Anaesthesiol; 2003 Jan; 20(1):65-9. PubMed ID: 12553391
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway size selection in male and female patients in an Asian population.
Tan SM; Sim YY; Koay CK
Anaesth Intensive Care; 2005 Apr; 33(2):239-42. PubMed ID: 15960408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
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. 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]
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. 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]
13. 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]
14. In cadavers, directly measured mucosal pressures are similar for the Unique and the Soft Seal laryngeal mask airway devices.
Keller C; Brimacombe J; Moriggl B; Lirk P; von Goedecke A
Can J Anaesth; 2004 Oct; 51(8):834-7. PubMed ID: 15470175
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Comparison and evaluation of single-use LMA supreme versus the reusable proseal LMA in paralyzed patients undergoing surgery with controlled ventilation.
Sood S; Chahar S; Thakur A; Gupta M; Saxena A; Subramanian S
J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol; 2020; 36(4):494-499. PubMed ID: 33840930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Resting esophageal sphincter pressures and deglutition frequency in awake subjects after oropharyngeal topical anesthesia and laryngeal mask device insertion.
Keller C; Brimacombe J
Anesth Analg; 2001 Jul; 93(1):226-9. PubMed ID: 11429371
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Oropharyngeal leak pressure with the laryngeal mask airway Supreme™ at different intracuff pressures: a randomized controlled trial.
Zhang L; Seet E; Mehta V; Subramanyam R; Ankichetty SP; Wong DT; Chung F
Can J Anaesth; 2011 Jul; 58(7):624-629. PubMed ID: 21533663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
