Autoclaving impairs the connector-tube bond of the laryngeal mask airway but not its airtightness.
(1/319)
The general-purpose laryngeal mask airway (LMA) is re-usable when undamaged, and cleaned and autoclaved correctly. We had found weakening of the silicone adhesive that bonds the connector of the LMA to the tube. We report that repeated autoclaving damaged the adhesive such that the connector could be rotated in the tube after the 12th autoclave cycle in almost all of the LMA tested. The damage to the adhesive did not affect the airtightness of the junction, which appears to be maintained by the material properties of the connector and tube and by the shape of the join. (+info)
Pharyngeal mucosal pressures, airway sealing pressures, and fiberoptic position with the intubating versus the standard laryngeal mask airway.
(2/319)
BACKGROUND: The tube of the intubating laryngeal mask (ILM) is more rigid than the standard laryngeal mask airway (LMA), and the authors have tested the hypothesis that pharyngeal mucosal pressures, airway sealing pressures, and fiberoptic position are different when the two devices are compared. METHODS: Twenty anesthetized, paralyzed adults were randomly allocated to receive either the LMA or ILM for airway management. Microchip sensors were attached to the size 5 LMA or ILM at locations corresponding to the pyriform fossa, hypopharynx, base of tongue, posterior pharynx, and distal and proximal oropharynx. Mucosal pressures, airway sealing pressures, and fiberoptic positioning were recorded during inflation of the cuff from 0 to 40 ml in 10-ml increments. RESULTS: Airway sealing pressures were higher for the ILM (30 vs. 23 cm H2O), but epiglottic downfolding was more common (56% vs. 26%). Pharyngeal mucosal pressures were much higher for the ILM at five of six locations. Mean mucosal pressures in the distal oropharynx for the ILM were always greater than 157 cm H2O, regardless of cuff volume. There was no correlation between mucosal pressures and airway sealing pressures at any location for the LMA, but there was a correlation at three of six locations for the ILM. CONCLUSIONS: The ILM provides a more effective seal than the LMA, but pharyngeal mucosal pressures are higher and always exceed capillary perfusion pressure. The ILM is unsuitable for use as a routine airway and should be removed after its use as an airway intubator. (+info)
Nasopharyngeal symptoms in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Effect of nasal CPAP treatment.
(3/319)
BACKGROUND: Nasal side effects are often reported during nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) and may make the use of nasal CPAP difficult. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of nasal CPAP on nasopharyngeal symptoms in OSAS patients. METHODS: The frequency and severity of nasopharyngeal symptoms and signs were prospectively evaluated in 49 consecutive OSAS patients (37 men, 12 women, mean (SD) age 54 (7) years, body mass index 35 (6) kg/m2) immediately before and after 6 months' treatment with nasal CPAP. RESULTS: Nasopharyngeal symptoms were common already before starting nasal CPAP: 74% of patients reported dryness, 53% sneezing, 51% mucus in the throat, 45% blocked nose, and 37% rhinorrhea. During nasal CPAP treatment, severity and frequency of sneezing (75%) and rhinorrhea (57%) increased. This increase was related to the season when nasal CPAP was applied, and was more profound in winter than in summer. Mild abnormalities on rhinoscopy and paranasal sinus X-rays were common both at baseline and at follow-up with no significant change during treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Nasopharyngeal problems were found to be frequent in patients with OSAS before nasal CPAP treatment, and tended to increase during the treatment. (+info)
Hemodynamic effects of bilevel nasal positive airway pressure ventilation in patients with heart failure.
(4/319)
AIMS: Benefits of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in patients presenting with chronic heart failure (CHF) are controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare the hemodynamic effects of CPAP and bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) in patients with or without CHF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty patients with CHF and 7 with normal left ventricular function underwent cardiac catheterization. Measurements were made before and after three 20-min periods of BiPAP: expiratory positive airway pressure (EPAP) = 8 cm H2O and inspiratory positive airway pressure (IPAP) = 12 cm H2O, EPAP = 10 cm H2O and IPAP = 15 cm H2O, and CPAP = EPAP = IPAP = 10 cm H2O administered in random order. Positive pressure ventilation decreased cardiac output (CO) and stroke volume. No change was observed in either pulmonary or systemic arterial pressure. There was no difference in the hemodynamic effects of the three ventilation settings. Only mean pulmonary wedge pressure (MPWP) and heart rate were lower with CPAP than with BiPAP. CO decreased only in patients with low MPWP (+info)
Large goitre causing difficult intubation and failure to intubate using the intubating laryngeal mask airway: lessons for next time.
(5/319)
A 63-yr-old woman was anaesthetized for sub-total thyroidectomy. The thyroid gland was large, deviating the trachea to the right and causing 30% tracheal narrowing at the level of the suprasternal notch. Mask ventilation was easy but laryngoscopy was Cormack and Lehane grade 3. Despite being able to see the tip of the epiglottis, tracheal intubation was impossible. An intubating laryngeal mask was inserted and although the airway was clear and ventilation easy, it was not possible to intubate the trachea either blindly or with the fibreoptic bronchoscope. Tracheal intubation was eventually achieved using a 6.5-mm cuffed oral tracheal tube via a size 4 laryngeal mask under fibreoptic control. We describe the case in detail and discuss the use of the intubating laryngeal mask, its potential limitations and how to optimize its use in similar circumstances. (+info)
Use of the cuffed oropharyngeal airway as an alternative to the laryngeal mask airway with positive-pressure ventilation.
(6/319)
BACKGROUND: The cuffed oropharyngeal airway is a modified Guedel-type oral airway with a cuff at its distal end. The objectives of this study were to compare the ability of the cuffed oropharyngeal airway and the laryngeal mask airway to provide positive-pressure ventilation during general anesthesia, and to assess their relative ease of use and ability to reduce total fresh gas flow rates. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized study, a cuffed oropharyngeal airway (n = 25) or a laryngeal mask airway (n = 25) device was inserted after induction of anesthesia intravenously using 2 mg/kg propofol. While anesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane and nitrous oxide, the leak pressure, leak fraction (the fractional difference between the inspired and expired tidal volume), minimum fresh gas flow rate, and need for airway manipulations were determined. The anesthesia provider who inserted the device completed an evaluation form at the end of the 15-min study period. RESULTS: Positive-pressure ventilation was established successfully on the first attempt in 92% of the patients when the cuffed oropharyngeal airway was used and in 88% of the patients when the laryngeal mask airway device was used. However, manipulations of the airway device were necessary more frequently (8 vs. 1 patient; P < 0.05) and the leak pressure was less (22 +/- 6 cm water vs. 26 +/- 5 cm water; P < 0.05) with the cuffed oropharyngeal airway than with the laryngeal mask airway. In addition, the leak fraction (0.19 +/- 0.18 vs. 0.31 +/- 0.22; P < 0.05) and the minimum fresh gas flow rate (1.3 +/- 1.5 vs. 2.4 +/- 2.5; P = 0.12) were less in the laryngeal mask airway group. CONCLUSIONS: Positive-pressure ventilation is possible with the laryngeal mask airway and cuffed oropharyngeal airway devices. Although the cuffed oropharyngeal airway can be inserted easily by inexperienced users with a high first-attempt success rate (> 90%), manipulations of the device may be required to maintain a patent airway. The laryngeal mask airway device allows positive-pressure ventilation at slightly greater peak inspiratory pressures. (+info)
Preliminary evaluation of a new prototype laryngeal mask in children.
(7/319)
We have assessed a prototype laryngeal mask airway (pLMA) in 50 anaesthetized children for ease of insertion, oropharyngeal leak pressures, gastric insufflation and fibreoptic position. The pLMA has a second smaller mask, which rests against the upper oesophageal sphincter, and a second cuff to increase the seal pressure of the glottic mask. All insertions were graded as easy and an effective airway was achieved in all patients. Oropharyngeal leak pressure was > 40 cm H2O in 49 of 50 patients. Gastric insufflation was not detected by epigastric auscultation. In 46 of 50 patients, the vocal cords were seen via a fibreoptic laryngoscope. One patient regurgitated clear fluid, but aspiration did not occur. On removal, blood staining was detected in three of 50 children. We conclude that the pLMA was easy to insert, facilitated high airway pressure ventilation and may provide some protection against gastric insufflation. (+info)
Prediction of movement at laryngeal mask airway insertion: comparison of auditory evoked potential index, bispectral index, spectral edge frequency and median frequency.
(8/319)
We have studied 46 patients to compare the efficacy of the auditory evoked potential (AEP) index, bispectral index (BIS), 95% spectral edge frequency (SEF) and median frequency (MF) in predicting movement in response to insertion of the laryngeal mask airway (LMA). Anaesthesia was induced with target-controlled infusions of propofol and alfentanil. After loss of eyelash reflex and adequate jaw relaxation, the LMA was inserted without the assistance of a laryngoscope or neuromuscular blocker. Patients who showed any visible spontaneous muscle movement within 1 min of LMA insertion were defined as movers. Values in movers and non-movers at 30 s before LMA insertion were analysed. Only AEP index discriminated between movers and non-movers with a prediction probability of 0.872. BIS, SEF and MF could not predict movement at LMA insertion. AEP index was the most reliable predictor of movement in response to LMA insertion. (+info)