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: Comparison of the ease of insertion of the laryngeal tube VBM and laryngeal mask airway during manual in-line neck stabilization.
    Author: Noor Zairul M, Khairul Faizi A, Norzalina E.
    Journal: Med J Malaysia; 2006 Jun; 61(2):157-61. PubMed ID: 16898305.
    Abstract:
    The purpose of this study is to assess whether the newly developed laryngeal tube (LT) VBM is easy, simple to use and able to provide adequate ventilation and oxygenation to a patient with an unstable neck who required airway management. We compared the LT to the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) as alternative airway management tool in adult patient with unstable neck who underwent intubation with manual in-line neck stabilization. A randomized single-blinded prospective study was conducted involving a total of 40 ASA I and II premedicated patients who were divided into two groups with 20 patients for each group; either LT or LMA group for airway management during elective surgery. After preoxygenation, anaesthesia was induced and neuromuscular blockade was produced with intravenous drugs. The LT or LMA was inserted after neuromuscular blockade was confirmed using a peripheral nerve stimulator (TOF 1). A size 3, 4 or 5 LT OR a size 3 or 4 LMA was inserted while the patient's head and neck were being stabilized by an assistant who held the sides of the neck and the mastoid processes (manual in-line stabilization). If it was not possible to ventilate the lungs, or if endotrachial carbon dioxide (ETCO2) and/or chest movement did not indicate a patent airway, the LT or LMA was removed. After three failed attempts, the study was terminated and the airway was secured in the most suitable manner determined by the anaesthetist. There was a statistically significant difference for both groups in the time required for successful insertion (time required for LT was 24.8 +/- 7.7 seconds and LMA was 36.1+/-17.3 seconds) (p= 0.01). There was no statistical differences (p>0.05) in number of attempts needed to achieve a patent airway although we were able to achieve a clear airway in all patients in LT group at the first attempt compared with 85% in LMA group. successful insertion rate was 100% for both groups. We conclude that the LT is easier to insert and is a suitable alternative to the LMA for airway management when the patient's head and neck are stabilized by manual in-line method.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]