These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
139 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11359590)
1. A comparison of four methods for assessing oropharyngeal leak pressure with the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) in paediatric patients. Lopez-Gil M; Brimacombe J; Keller C Paediatr Anaesth; 2001 May; 11(3):319-21. PubMed ID: 11359590 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of four methods for assessing airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in adult patients. Keller C; Brimacombe JR; Keller K; Morris R Br J Anaesth; 1999 Feb; 82(2):286-7. PubMed ID: 10365012 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. A comparison of the oropharyngeal leak pressure between the reusable Classic laryngeal mask airway and the single-use Soft Seal laryngeal mask airway. Hanning SJ; McCulloch TJ; Orr B; Anderson SP Anaesth Intensive Care; 2006 Apr; 34(2):237-9. PubMed ID: 16617647 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Appropriate size of laryngeal mask airway for children. Loke GP; Tan SM; Ng AS Anaesth Intensive Care; 2002 Dec; 30(6):771-4. PubMed ID: 12500516 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
10. 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]
11. The randomized crossover comparison of airway sealing with the laryngeal mask airway Supreme(™) at three different intracuff pressures in children. Choi KW; Lee JR; Oh JT; Kim DW; Kim MS Paediatr Anaesth; 2014 Oct; 24(10):1080-7. PubMed ID: 25059727 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The cuffed oropharyngeal airway vs. the laryngeal mask airway: a randomised cross-over study of oropharyngeal leak pressure and fibreoptic view in paralysed patients. Brimacombe J; Keller C Anaesthesia; 1999 Jul; 54(7):683-5. PubMed ID: 10417463 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A comparison of the laryngeal mask airway and cuffed oropharyngeal airway in anesthetized adult patients. Brimacombe JR; Brimacombe JC; Berry AM; Morris R; Mecklem D; Clarke G; Barry J; Kirk T Anesth Analg; 1998 Jul; 87(1):147-52. PubMed ID: 9661564 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Influence of cuff volume on oropharyngeal leak pressure and fibreoptic position with the laryngeal mask airway. Keller C; Pühringer F; Brimacombe JR Br J Anaesth; 1998 Aug; 81(2):186-7. PubMed ID: 9813520 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. LMA ProSeal(TM) vs. i-Gel(TM) in ventilated children: a randomised, crossover study using the size 2 mask. Gasteiger L; Brimacombe J; Oswald E; Perkhofer D; Tonin A; Keller C; Tiefenthaler W Acta Anaesthesiol Scand; 2012 Nov; 56(10):1321-4. PubMed ID: 22946775 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A Randomized Crossover Comparison of Airway Sealing with the Laryngeal Mask Airway Ambu AuraFlex at Three Intracuff Pressures in Pediatric Laparoscopic Surgery. Liu X; Tan X; Zhang Q; Qiao L; Shi L Am J Perinatol; 2021 Feb; 38(3):231-236. PubMed ID: 31529447 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Safety and efficacy of laryngeal mask airway Supreme versus laryngeal mask airway ProSeal: a randomized controlled trial. Seet E; Rajeev S; Firoz T; Yousaf F; Wong J; Wong DT; Chung F Eur J Anaesthesiol; 2010 Jul; 27(7):602-7. PubMed ID: 20540172 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Laryngeal mask airway ProSeal provides higher oropharyngeal leak pressure than i-gel in adult patients under general anesthesia: a meta-analysis. Maitra S; Baidya DK; Arora MK; Bhattacharjee S; Khanna P J Clin Anesth; 2016 Sep; 33():298-305. PubMed ID: 27555181 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]