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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A comparison of the Soft Seal disposable and the Classic re-usable laryngeal mask airway.
    Author: Shafik MT, Bahlman BU, Hall JE, Ali MS.
    Journal: Anaesthesia; 2006 Feb; 61(2):178-81. PubMed ID: 16430570.
    Abstract:
    Many new supraglottic airway devices have been recently introduced, their development motivated by the need for a single-use equivalent to the original re-usable laryngeal mask airway. We performed a randomised cross-over study in spontaneously breathing patients comparing the re-usable Laryngeal Mask Airway-Classic (LMA) and the disposable Soft Seal Laryngeal Mask in sizes 3, 4 and 5. Sixty patients had an LMA and a disposable laryngeal mask placed in random order. The primary outcome was first attempt insertion success rate. Ease of insertion was similar in both groups and there was no difference in first attempt success rates (96% with LMA and 92% with disposable laryngeal mask). The disposable laryngeal mask required significantly less air to inflate the cuff to produce a seal (10 [10-25] ml with disposable laryngeal mask and 15 [10-30] ml with laryngeal mask) and the cuff pressure produced was significantly lower (35 [20-80] cmH(2)O with disposable laryngeal mask and 75 [20-120] cmH(2)O with LMA). Data are median and range. We conclude that the disposable laryngeal mask is an acceptable alternative to the re-usable LMA.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]