EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
53,869,633
Abstracts:
29,686,251
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

The laryngeal mask airway Unique(TM) versus the Soft Seal(TM) laryngeal mask: A randomized, crossover study in paralyzed, anesthetized patients



The laryngeal mask airway Unique(TM) versus the Soft Seal(TM) laryngeal mask: A randomized, crossover study in paralyzed, anesthetized patients



Anesthesia and Analgesia 99(5): 1560-1563



We tested the hypothesis that ease of insertion, oropharyngeal leak pressure, fiberoptic position, ease of ventilation, and mucosal trauma are different for the Soft Seal(TM) laryngeal mask airway (SSLM) and the laryngeal mask airway Unique(TM) (LMA-U). Ninety paralyzed, anesthetized adult patients (ASA I-II; 18-80 yr old) were studied. Both devices were inserted into each patient in random order.

(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 012663977

Download citation: RISBibTeXText



Related references

The laryngeal mask airway Unique versus the Soft Seal laryngeal mask: a randomized, crossover study in paralyzed, anesthetized patients. Anesthesia and Analgesia 99(5): 1560-3; Table of Contents, 2004

A comparison of the Supreme laryngeal mask airway with the Proseal laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized paralyzed adult patients: a randomized crossover study. Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 57(7): 672-678, 2010

The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: A randomized, crossover study with the standard laryngeal mask airway in paralyzed, anesthetized patients. Anesthesiology 93(1): 104-109, 2000

Randomized crossover study assessing oropharyngeal leak pressure and fiber optic positioning : Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme™ versus Laryngeal Tube LTS II™ size 2 in non-paralyzed anesthetized children. Der Anaesthesist 65(8): 585-589, 2016

A randomized crossover comparison of the size 2 1/2 laryngeal mask airway ProSeal versus laryngeal mask airway-Classic in pediatric patients. Anesthesia and Analgesia 100(6): 1605-1610, 2005

A randomized crossover comparison of the size 2 1/2 laryngeal mask airway ProSeal (TM) versus Laryngeal Mask Airway-Classic (TM) in pediatric patients. Anesthesia and Analgesia 100(6): 1605-1610, 2005

Randomized prospective study comparing the laryngeal tube suction II with the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized and paralyzed patients. Anesthesiology 109(1): 54-60, 2008

Intubating laryngeal mask airway size selection: a randomized triple crossover study in paralyzed, anesthetized male and female adult patients. Anesthesia and Analgesia 94(4): 1023-7, Table of Contents, 2002

Sex-based ProSealTM laryngeal mask-airway size selection: A randomized crossover study of anesthetized, paralyzed male and female adult patients. Anesthesia & Analgesia 97(1): 280-284, July, 2003

A randomized study to compare ProSeal laryngeal mask airway with classic laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized patients. Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia 29(4): 285-290, 2013

Randomized crossover comparison of the laryngeal mask airway classic with i-gel laryngeal mask airway in the management of difficult airway in post burn neck contracture patients. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia 56(4): 348-352, 2012

Size 2 ProSeal(TM) laryngeal mask airway: a randomized, crossover investigation with the standard laryngeal mask airway in paediatric patients. British Journal of Anaesthesia 94(3): 385-389, 2005

Size 2 ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: a randomized, crossover investigation with the standard laryngeal mask airway in paediatric patients. British Journal of Anaesthesia 94(3): 385-389, 2004