Search

Unlabelled: We compared the cuffed oropharyngeal airway (COPA) with the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) in 120 anesthetized adult patients. We compared 1) placement success rates, 2) airway interventional requirements, 3) airway stability in different head/neck positions, 4) cardiorespiratory tolerance, and 5) intra- and postoperative adverse events/symptoms. A standardized anesthesia protocol was followed by four anesthesiologists experienced with both devices. Observational data were validated by independent analysis of continuous video recordings. Postoperative interviews were double-blind to the device used. The LMA had a more frequent success rate than COPA (97% vs 55%, P < 0.00001), an overall higher success rate (100% vs 83%; P = 0.001), a shorter time to achieve an effective airway (49 vs 188 s; P < 0.00001), a higher oropharyngeal leak pressure (21 vs 16 cm H2O; P = 0.003), and a fewer number of chin lift airway interventions required (0.1% vs 42%; P < 0.00001). When comparing mean tidal volumes in different head/neck positions to assess airway stability, the quality of airway was unchanged in 98% patients with the LMA and 54% with the COPA (P < 0.00001). The incidences of intraoperative adverse events were similar. On removal, blood was detected more often on the COPA (3% vs 14%; P = 0.04). In the late postoperative period, more patients complained of adverse symptoms with the COPA than with the LMA (26% vs 57%; P = 0.001). Late postoperative symptoms occurred more frequently with the COPA (0.87 vs 0.34; P = 0.003). There was more late postoperative sore throat (14% vs 36%; P = 0.0003) and more jaw/neck pain (12% vs 26%; P = 0.0008) in patients managed with the COPA. This study demonstrates that the LMA offers advantages over the COPA in most technical aspects of airway management and in terms of postoperative morbidity., Implications: In this randomized, prospective study, we compared the laryngeal mask airway and the cuffed oropharyngeal airway in anesthetized patients. The laryngeal mask airway offers advantages in most technical aspects of airway management and in terms of postoperative morbidity.

The purpose of this randomised single blinded study was to determine the optimal size of laryngeal mask airway in the normal adult population, to test the validity of the current selection criteria and to determine if any externally measured anatomical variable correlated with optimal size. In each of 30 apnoeic anaesthetised adults weighting less than 100 kg, size 3, 4 and 5 laryngeal mask airways were inserted in random order by a skilled user and the cuff inflated to a standard pressure (60 cm H2O). Optimal size was based on four criteria in order of priority: number of attempts at placement, oropharyngeal leak pressure, fiberoptic score and percentage of vocal cords seen. The size 5 laryngeal mask airway was optimal in 19/30 and the size 4 in 11/30. In no patient was the size 3 the optimal fit. Oropharyngeal leak pressure was significantly higher for each progressively large size and the fiberoptic view was significantly better for the size 4 and size 5. There was no significant predictive value in any externally measured anatomical variable, but height was the most useful. The best current selection strategy was to choose a size 5 for males and size 4 for females. Potentially useful new strategies may be to use the size 5 in all adults, or a size 5 > or = 165 cm in height and size 4 for < 165 cm. We conclude that predicting the optimal size of laryngeal mask airway for individual adult patients is complex. The best size selection strategies involve use of the size 4 and 5 laryngeal mask airways in adults.

In assessing the potential role of the LMA outside the operating room, the risks of a less secure airway must be balanced against the benefits of ease of training, success and speed of insertion, no need for direct visualization of laryngeal structures, and lesser need for ancillary equipment. The LMA has a role as an alternative to FMV in CPR when personnel skilled in tracheal intubation are not available. When skilled intubators are present, it has an important role as an alternative airway when intubation has been impossible. These roles extend to the prehospital setting, with an additional specific indication for its use when access to a patient is limited making tracheal intubation impossible. The LMA is incorporated into advanced life support training and as such should be regarded as a device providing temporary airway support, rather than a replacement for a tracheal tube. The LMA, and possibly also the ILM, should be standard equipment carried by prehospital trauma teams and by all those attending victims in the field.

The laryngeal mask airway (LMA) provides a third type of airway for consideration in otolaryngology that offers some of the benefits of intubation and avoids many of the associated hazards. It can be inserted without the use of a laryngoscope or muscle relaxant, and is designed to produce an airtight seal around the laryngeal inlet. The LMA provides a secure airway suitable for spontaneous or controlled ventilation, acts as an airtight throat pack, and is well tolerated during recovery. The reinforced LMA (RLMA), specifically designed for otolaryngology anaesthesia, has recently become available. The purpose of this article to is provide a brief overview of the LMA with special emphasis on its use in otolaryngology--head and neck surgery.