Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2003 Jan;20(1):65-9.
doi: 10.1017/s0265021503000127.

Stability of the LMA-ProSeal and standard laryngeal mask airway in different head and neck positions: a randomized crossover study

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Stability of the LMA-ProSeal and standard laryngeal mask airway in different head and neck positions: a randomized crossover study

J Brimacombe et al. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2003 Jan.

Abstract

Background and objective: The LMA-ProSeal laryngeal mask airway is a new laryngeal mask airway with a modified cuff and drainage tube. We compared oropharyngeal leak pressure, intracuff pressure and anatomical position (assessed fibreoptically) for the Size 5 LMA-ProSeal laryngeal mask airway and the classic laryngeal mask airway in different head-neck positions and using different intracuff inflation volumes.

Methods: Thirty paralysed anaesthetized adult male patients were studied. The LMA-ProSeal laryngeal mask airway and the classic laryngeal mask airway were inserted into each patient in random order. The oropharyngeal leak pressure, intracuff pressure, and anatomical position of the airway tube and drainage tube (LMA-ProSeal laryngeal mask airway only) were documented in four head and neck positions (neutral first, then flexion, extension and rotation in random order), and at 0-40 mL cuff volumes in the neutral position in 10 mL increments.

Results: Compared with the neutral position, the oropharyngeal leak pressure for both the LMA-ProSeal laryngeal mask airway and the classic laryngeal mask airway was higher in flexion and rotation (all P < or = 0.02), but lower in extension (all P < or = 0.01). Changes in head-neck position did not alter the anatomical position of the airway tube or the drainage tube. The oropharyngeal leak pressure was always higher for the LMA-ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (all P < or = 0.005) and anatomical position better for the classic laryngeal mask airway (all P < or = 0.04).

Conclusions: The anatomical position of the LMA-ProSeal and the classic laryngeal mask airway is stable in different head-neck positions, but head-neck flexion and rotation are associated with an increase, and head-neck extension a decrease, in oropharyngeal leak pressure and intracuff pressure. The Size 5 LMA-ProSeal laryngeal mask airway is capable of forming a more effective seal than the Size 5 classic laryngeal mask airway in males.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

LinkOut - more resources