Central European Journal of Medicine

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 162–171 | Cite as

A clinical comparison of the Laryngeal Tube™ and the Laryngeal Mask™ in spontaneously breathing anesthetized patients

  • Johanna Albert
  • Leif Kindlund
  • Barbro Nilvér
  • Waldemar Gożdzik
Research Article
  • 35 Downloads

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The laryngeal mask airway (LMA) can be used in general anaesthesia without neuromuscular block. The laryngeal tube (LT) is a new airway device with similar airway features as LMA. LT is provided with a distal cuff to prevent regurgitation. In this study we compared the LMA and LT concerning patient and user aspects.

Methods: Sixty patients with ASA (American Society of Anestesiologists) score 1–2 scheduled for minor surgery were randomized to be ventilated either through LMA or LT. After insertion, the number of insertion attempts, and “positioning” and “airway-assessment” was evaluated. The patients reported on “sore throat” after 30 and 60 minutes and the day after anaesthesia.

Results: Gender and mean age were equal in both groups. The first insertion attempt was successful in 25 of 28 patients randomised to LMA and in 23 of 27 patients randomised to LT. LMA was evaluated to be easier in “positioning” whereas no difference in “sore throat” was reported.

Conclusion: We found no difference between the LMA and the LT in terms user and patient friendliness and safety.

Keywords

Laryngeal tube laryngeal mask spontaneous breathing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    H. Ocker, V. Wenzel, P. Schmucker, M. Steinfath and V. Dörges: “A comparison of the Laryngeal Tube with the Laryngeal Mask Airway During Routine Surgical Procedures”, Anesth. Analg., Vol. 95, (2002), pp. 1094–1097.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    J.R. Brimacombe and A. Berry: “The incidence of aspiration associated with the laryngeal mask airway: a meta-analysis of published literature”, J. Clin. Anesth., Vol. 7, (1995), pp. 297–305.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    T. Asai, K. Shingu and T. Cook: “Use of the laryngeal tube in 100 patients”, Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand., Vol. 47, (2003), pp. 828–832.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    D.M. Miller, I. Youkhana and C. Pearce: “The laryngeal mask and VBM laryngeal tube compared during spontaneous ventilation. A pilot study, Eur. J. Anaesthesiol., Vol. 18, (2001), pp. 593–598.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    V. Dörges, H. Ocker, V. Wenzel, M. Steinfath and K. Gerlach: “The Laryngeal Tube S: A Modified Simple Aiway Device, Anesth. Analg., Vol. 96, (2003), pp. 618–621.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    J. Bromacombe, C. Keller and L. Brimacombe: “Comparison of the laryngeal mask airway ProSeal and the laryngeal tube airway in paralyzed anesthetized adult patients undergoing pressure-controlled ventilation”, Anesth. Analg., Vol. 95, (2002), pp. 770–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    T. Asai, K. Murao and K. Shingu: “Efficacy of the laryngeal tube during intermittent positive-pressure ventilation”, Anaesthesia, Vol.55, (2000), p. 1099.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    E. Figueredo, M. Martinez and T. Pintanel: “A comparison of the ProSeal™ Laryngeal Mask and the Laryngeal Tube® in spontaneously breathing anesthetized patients”, Anesth. Analg., Vol. 96, (2003), pp. 600–605.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    T.M. Cook, C. McKinstry, R. Hardy and S. Twigg: “Randomized crossover comparison of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway with the Laryngeal Tube® during anaesthesia with controlled ventilation, Br. J. Anaesth., Vol. 91, (2003), pp. 678–683.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    D. Grady, F. McHardy, J. Wong, J. Fengling, D. Tong and F. Chung: “Pharyngolaryngeal Morbidity with the Laryngeal Mask Airway in Spontaneously Breathing Patients: Does Size Matter”, Anesthesiology, Vol. 94, (2001), pp. 760–766.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Laryngeal Mask Airway Instruction Manual, Intavent Ltd, Maidenhead, UK, 2002.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    S. Kihara, J. Brimacombe, Y. Yaguchi, N. Taguchi and S. Watanabe: “A comparison of gender and weight-based ProSeal™ laryngeal mask size selection criteria: a randomised study of healthy anesthetized, paralysed adult patients”, Anesthesiology, Vol.94, (2004), pp. 1023–1027.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    S.R. Mallampati, S.P. Gatt and L.D. Gugino: “A clinical sign to predict difficult tracheal intubation: a prospective study”, Can. Anaesthet. Soc. J., Vol. 32, (1985), pp. 429–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Versita Warsaw and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johanna Albert
    • 1
  • Leif Kindlund
    • 1
  • Barbro Nilvér
    • 1
  • Waldemar Gożdzik
    • 2
  1. 1.Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Sciences, Division of Anaesthesia and Intensive CareDanderyds HospitalStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive TherapyMedical University WroclawWroclawPoland

Personalised recommendations