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

Clinical comparison of the reusable LMA Classic laryngeal mask and the disposable Soft Seal mask in adult patients



Clinical comparison of the reusable LMA Classic laryngeal mask and the disposable Soft Seal mask in adult patients



Revista Espanola de Anestesiologia Y Reanimacion 54(8): 462-468



To compare the clinical behavior of the disposable Soft Seal laryngeal mask to the behavior of the reusable LMA Classic mask. Patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups in which either the LMA Classic or the Soft Seal mask would be used. We assessed time required for positioning and number of attempts, seal pressure, fiberoptic bronchoscopic image, and complications. The masks were inserted by 2 anesthesiologists who were inexperienced in the use of laryngeal masks. We also compared compliance of the cuff in the laboratory. Sixty patients were enrolled. There were no differences in time required for insertion or number of attempts (first-try success, 83%). The mean (SD) seal pressure was greater in the Soft Seal group at 23 (4) cm H2O than in the LMA Classic group at 20 (4) cm H2O. There were no significant differences in the fiberoptic bronchoscopic images, ventilation, incidence of intraoperative complications, presence of blood on the cuff (LMA Classic, 6 out of 30 vs Soft Seal, 11 out of 29), or postoperative sore throat. In 3 patients in the Soft Seal group the laryngeal mask had to be replaced by an orotracheal tube. Cuff compliance in the laboratory was lower for the LMA Classic than for the disposable mask for all sizes assessed. Although the results suggest that the clinical behavior of the 2 masks is similar, the LMA Classic allowed for effective airway management in all of the cases assigned to it, whereas management was effective in 90% of the cases in which the Soft Seal mask was used. The inflatable cuff of the Soft Seal is more compliant in vitro and it provides a higher airway seal pressure than does the LMA Classic.

(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 052113056

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 17993094



Related references

A comparison of the oropharyngeal leak pressure between the reusable Classic laryngeal mask airway and the single-use Soft Seal laryngeal mask airway. Anaesthesia and Intensive Care 34(2): 237-239, 2006

A comparison of the disposable Ambu AuraOnce Laryngeal Mask with the reusable LMA Classic laryngeal mask airway. Anaesthesia 62(7): 719-722, 2007

A comparison of the Soft Seal disposable and the Classic re-usable laryngeal mask airway. Anaesthesia 61(2): 178-181, 2006

Comparison of the LMA-ClassicTM with the new disposable Soft Seal Laryngeal Mask in spontaneously breathing adult patients. Anesthesiology (Hagerstown) 99(5): 1066-1071, November, 2003

Laryngeal tube S II, laryngeal tube S disposable, Fastrach laryngeal mask and Fastrach laryngeal mask disposable during elective surgery: a randomized controlled comparison between reusable and disposable supraglottic airway devices. European Journal of Anaesthesiology 27(5): 468-472, 2010

A comparison of the disposable versus the reusable laryngeal mask airway in paralyzed adult patients. Anesthesia and Analgesia 87(4): 921-924, 1998

Comparison of disposable and reusable laryngeal mask airways in spontaneously ventilating adult patients. Anaesthesia and Intensive Care 32(4): 530-534, 2005

Comparison of the Supreme Laryngeal Mask Airway(SLMA), single use, with the reusable Proseal Laryngeal Mask Airway(PLMA) in anesthetized adult Japanese patients. Masui. Japanese Journal of Anesthesiology 61(10): 1048-1052, 2013

Comparison of LMA Unique, Ambu laryngeal mask and Soft Seal laryngeal mask during routine surgical procedures. European Journal of Anaesthesiology 24(2): 134-140, 2006

Comparison of LMA Unique, Ambu laryngeal mask and Soft Seal laryngeal mask during routine surgical procedures. European Journal of Anaesthesiology 24(9): 812-813, 2007

Comparison of laryngeal mask airway Supreme and laryngeal mask airway Pro-Seal for controlled ventilation during general anaesthesia in adult patients: systematic review with meta-analysis. European Journal of Anaesthesiology 31(5): 266-273, 2014

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

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, 2004

The Soft Seal disposable laryngeal mask airway in adults: comparison of two insertion techniques without intra-oral manipulation. Anaesthesia 63(10): 1131-1134, 2008

Randomised crossover comparison of the Ambu AuraOnce Laryngeal Mask with the LMA Classic laryngeal mask airway in paralysed anaesthetised patients. Anaesthesia 63(1): 82-85, 2007