TY - JOUR
T1 - A comparison between the PLA Cobra™ and the Laryngeal Mask Airway Unique™ during spontaneous ventilation
T2 - A randomized prospective study
AU - Gaitini, Luis
AU - Yanovski, Boris
AU - Somri, Mustafa
AU - Vaida, Sonia
AU - Riad, Tome
AU - Alfery, David
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank the patients and their relatives for their cooperation, the physicians in the lipid clinics for the clinical characterization and care of the patients, and Mrs Irmgard Eggersdorfer for her excellent technical assistance. This work was supported by a grant from the MÏnchener Medizinische Wochenschrift e.V. The patients were identified and clinically characterized as part of the MEDPED-Germany programme (`Make early diagnosis to prevent early cardiac death in medical pedigrees with familial hypercholesterolaemia') supported by Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Germany.
PY - 2006/2
Y1 - 2006/2
N2 - The Laryngeal Mask (LMA) Unique and the Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway (PLA) are single-use supraglottic devices. There are no published studies comparing these devices during spontaneous ventilation. We compared the LMA Unique and the Cobra PLA with respect to 1) ventilatory variables during spontaneous ventilation, 2) time to achieve an effective airway, 3) airway intervention requirements, 4) cuff seal pressures, 5) fiberoptic score, and 6) perioperative adverse events. Eighty adult ASA physical status I-II patients undergoing general anesthesia for minor routine surgery were randomly allocated to LMA Unique or PLA Cobra for airway management. No statistically significant differences were found between the devices with respect to inspiratory tidal volume, expiratory tidal volume, end-tidal CO2 concentration, respiratory rate, number and type of airway interventions required with placement, the fiberoptic score, and the incidence of perioperative adverse events. The oropharyngeal leak (seal) pressure was higher for the CobraPLA (27 ± 7 versus 21 ± 4 cm H2O; P < 0.001). The oxygen saturation was higher (98.1% ± 1% versus 97.3% ± 2%; P = 0.02) in the LMA group. Time of insertion was shorter for LMA (23.7 ± 2 s versus 26.6 ± 7 s; P = 0.02) and insertion difficulty was less for LMA (P = 0.03). As these differences were not judged to be clinically important, both devices appear to be effective in establishing an adequate airway in patients who are spontaneously breathing under general anesthesia.
AB - The Laryngeal Mask (LMA) Unique and the Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway (PLA) are single-use supraglottic devices. There are no published studies comparing these devices during spontaneous ventilation. We compared the LMA Unique and the Cobra PLA with respect to 1) ventilatory variables during spontaneous ventilation, 2) time to achieve an effective airway, 3) airway intervention requirements, 4) cuff seal pressures, 5) fiberoptic score, and 6) perioperative adverse events. Eighty adult ASA physical status I-II patients undergoing general anesthesia for minor routine surgery were randomly allocated to LMA Unique or PLA Cobra for airway management. No statistically significant differences were found between the devices with respect to inspiratory tidal volume, expiratory tidal volume, end-tidal CO2 concentration, respiratory rate, number and type of airway interventions required with placement, the fiberoptic score, and the incidence of perioperative adverse events. The oropharyngeal leak (seal) pressure was higher for the CobraPLA (27 ± 7 versus 21 ± 4 cm H2O; P < 0.001). The oxygen saturation was higher (98.1% ± 1% versus 97.3% ± 2%; P = 0.02) in the LMA group. Time of insertion was shorter for LMA (23.7 ± 2 s versus 26.6 ± 7 s; P = 0.02) and insertion difficulty was less for LMA (P = 0.03). As these differences were not judged to be clinically important, both devices appear to be effective in establishing an adequate airway in patients who are spontaneously breathing under general anesthesia.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=31444450732&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=31444450732&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1213/01.ane.0000189098.57662.d6
DO - 10.1213/01.ane.0000189098.57662.d6
M3 - Article
C2 - 16428575
AN - SCOPUS:31444450732
SN - 0003-2999
VL - 102
SP - 631
EP - 636
JO - Anesthesia and analgesia
JF - Anesthesia and analgesia
IS - 2
ER -