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

Journal Abstract Search

218 related items for 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No 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
    [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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No 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
    [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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No 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
    [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 Apr; 36(4):494-499. PubMed ID: 33840930
    [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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 11.