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.
156 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28928564)
21. Comparison of Size 2 LMA-ProSeal™ and LMA-Supreme™ in Spontaneously Breathing Children: a Randomised Clinical Trial. Arslan Zİ; Balcı C; Oysu DA; Yılmaz M; Gürbüz N; Ilce Z Balkan Med J; 2013 Mar; 30(1):90-3. PubMed ID: 25207076 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Clinical Performance Comparison of LMA Protector™ Cuff Pilot™ and LMA Supreme™ When Used in Anesthetized, Non-paralyzed Patients. Chan WK; Liu CY Cureus; 2022 Mar; 14(3):e23176. PubMed ID: 35308185 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Randomized prospective trial comparing two supraglottic airway devices: i-gel™ and LMA-Supreme™ in paralyzed patients. Joly N; Poulin LP; Tanoubi I; Drolet P; Donati F; St-Pierre P Can J Anaesth; 2014 Sep; 61(9):794-800. PubMed ID: 25141831 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. LMA Supreme™ vs i-gel™--a comparison of insertion success in novices. Ragazzi R; Finessi L; Farinelli I; Alvisi R; Volta CA Anaesthesia; 2012 Apr; 67(4):384-8. PubMed ID: 22329593 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Randomized evaluation of the size 2 laryngeal tube and classical laryngeal mask airway in different head and neck positions in children under positive pressure ventilation. Biedler A; Wrobel M; Schneider S; Soltész S; Ziegeler S; Grundmann U J Anesth; 2013 Oct; 27(5):657-62. PubMed ID: 23460409 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. Influence of head and neck position on performance of the Ambu® AuraGain™ laryngeal mask: a randomized crossover study. Yoo S; Park SK; Kim WH; Hur M; Bahk JH; Lim YJ; Kim JT Minerva Anestesiol; 2019 Feb; 85(2):133-138. PubMed ID: 29589419 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Influence of Head and Neck Position on Oropharyngeal Leak Pressure and Cuff Position with the ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway and the I-Gel: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Mishra SK; Nawaz M; Satyapraksh MV; Parida S; Bidkar PU; Hemavathy B; Kundra P Anesthesiol Res Pract; 2015; 2015():705869. PubMed ID: 25648620 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Ambu® AuraGain™ versus LMA Supreme™ Second Seal™: a randomised controlled trial comparing oropharyngeal leak pressures and gastric drain functionality in spontaneously breathing patients. Shariffuddin II; Teoh WH; Tang E; Hashim N; Loh PS Anaesth Intensive Care; 2017 Mar; 45(2):244-250. PubMed ID: 28267947 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Contrast of oropharyngeal leak pressure and clinical performance of I-gel™ and LMA ProSeal™ in patients: A meta-analysis. Tan Y; Jiang J; Wang R PLoS One; 2022; 17(12):e0278871. PubMed ID: 36520843 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. The AMBU® Aura-i™ Laryngeal Mask and LMA Supreme™: A Randomized Trial of Clinical Performance and Fibreoptic Positioning in Unparalysed, Anaesthetised Patients by Novices. Yahaya Z; Teoh WH; Dintan NA; Agrawal R Anesthesiol Res Pract; 2016; 2016():4717061. PubMed ID: 27847515 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Comparison of i-gel™ and laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized paralyzed patients. Reza Hashemian SM; Nouraei N; Razavi SS; Zaker E; Jafari A; Eftekhari P; Radmand G; Mohajerani SA; Radpay B Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci; 2014; 4(4):288-92. PubMed ID: 25625059 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Influence of head and neck positions on oropharyngeal seal pressure with Baska mask Sidhu GK; Jindal S; Mahajan R; Bhagat S Indian J Anaesth; 2020 Aug; 64(8):675-680. PubMed ID: 32934401 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Effect of pneumoperitoneum and Trendelenberg position on oropharyngeal sealing pressure of I-gel™ and ProSeal LMA™ in laparoscopic gynecological surgery: A randomized controlled trial. Mishra SK; Sivaraman B; Balachander H; Naggappa M; Parida S; Bhat RR; Yuvaraj K Anesth Essays Res; 2015; 9(3):353-8. PubMed ID: 26712973 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Comparison of oropharyngeal leak pressure of LMA Protector and LMA-ProSeal in different head and neck positions in anaesthetized and paralyzed patients; A prospective randomized study. Kerai S; Bhatt G; Saxena KN; Gaba P; Wadhwa B Indian J Anaesth; 2023 Feb; 67(2):201-206. PubMed ID: 37091441 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Comparing leak pressure of LMA Chaki T; Koizumi M; Tachibana S; Matsumoto T; Kumagai T; Hashimoto Y; Yamakage M Can J Anaesth; 2024 Jan; 71(1):66-76. PubMed ID: 38017196 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Comparison of the Supreme™ and ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airways in infants: a prospective randomised clinical study. Oba S; Turk HS; Isil CT; Erdogan H; Sayin P; Dokucu AI BMC Anesthesiol; 2017 Sep; 17(1):125. PubMed ID: 28870163 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Comparison of the i-gel™ with the AuraGain™ laryngeal mask airways in patients with a simulated cervical immobilization: a randomized controlled trial. Hur M; Choi S; Row HS; Kim TK Minerva Anestesiol; 2020 Jul; 86(7):727-735. PubMed ID: 32251570 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Effect of laryngeal mask airway placement on the optimal site and success rate of venipuncture via the right internal jugular vein. Liu HQ; Li XB; Zhang YS; Li J Int J Clin Exp Med; 2015; 8(8):13179-86. PubMed ID: 26550241 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]