35
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Troubleshooting ProSeal LMA

      other

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Summary

          Supraglottic devices have changed the face of the airway management. These devices have contributed in a big way in airway management especially, in the difficult airway scenario significantly decreasing the pharyngolaryngeal morbidity. There is a plethora of these devices, which has been well matched by their wider acceptance in clinical practice. ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) is one such frequently used device employed for spontaneous as well as controlled ventilation. However, the use of PLMA at times maybe associated with certain problems. Some of the problems related with its use are unique while others are akin to the classic laryngeal mask airway (cLMA). However, expertise is needed for its safe and judicious use, correct placement, recognition and management of its various malpositions and complications. The present article describes the tests employed for proper confirmation of placement to assess the ventilatory and the drain tube functions of the mask, diagnosis of various malpositions and the management of these aspects. All these areas have been highlighted under the heading of troubleshooting PLMA. Many problems can be solved by proper patient and procedure selection, maintaining adequate depth of anaesthesia, diagnosis and management of malpositions. Proper fixation of the device and monitoring cuff pressure intraoperatively may bring down the incidence of airway morbidity.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The LMA 'ProSeal'--a laryngeal mask with an oesophageal vent.

          We describe a new laryngeal mask airway (LMA) that incorporates a second tube placed lateral to the airway tube and ending at the tip of the mask. The second tube is intended to separate the alimentary and respiratory tracts. It should permit access to or escape of fluids from the stomach and reduce the risks of gastric insufflation and pulmonary aspiration. It can also determine the correct positioning of the mask. A second posterior cuff is fitted to improve the seal. A preliminary crossover comparison with the standard mask in 30 adult female patients showed no differences in insertion, trauma or quality of airway. At 60 cm H2O intracuff pressure, the new LMA gave twice the seal pressure of the standard device (P < 0.0001) and permitted blind insertion of a gastric tube in all cases. It is concluded that the new device merits further study.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: A randomized, crossover study with the standard laryngeal mask airway in paralyzed, anesthetized patients.

            The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (PLMA) is a new laryngeal mask device with a modified cuff to improve seal and a drainage tube to provide a channel for regurgitated fluid and gastric tube placement. In the present randomized, crossover study, the authors tested the hypothesis that ease of insertion, airway sealing pressure, and fiberoptic position differ between the PLMA and the standard laryngeal mask airway (LMA). For the PLMA, we also assess ease of gastric tube placement and the efficacy of an introducer tool. Sixty paralyzed, anesthetized adult patients were studied. Both devices (only size 4) were inserted into each patient in random order. Airway sealing pressure and fiberoptic position were determined during cuff inflation from 0 to 40 ml in 10-ml increments. Gastric tube insertion was attempted with the PLMA if there was no gas leak from the drainage tube. In 60 additional patients, ease of insertion for the PLMA was compared with and without an introducer. First-time success rates were higher (60 of 60 vs. 52 of 60; P = 0.003) and the effective airway time shorter (9 +/- 3 s vs20 +/- 18 s; P < 0.0001) for the LMA. There were no failed uses of either device within three attempts. Airway sealing pressure was 8-11 cm H2O higher for the PLMA at all cuff volumes (P < 0.00001) and was higher in females for both devices. Fiberoptic position was better with the LMA at all cuff volumes (P < 0.00001), but vocal cord visibility was similar (LMA, 59 of 60; PLMA, 56 of 60). For the PLMA, gastric tube placement was successful in 58 of 58 patients and took 9 +/- 5 s. First-time success rates were higher (59 of 60 vs53/60; P = 0.03) and the effective airway time shorter (15 +/- 13 s vs 23 +/- 18 s; P = 0.008) with the introducer. The PLMA is capable of achieving a more effective seal than the LMA and facilitates gastric tube placement, but it is more difficult to insert unless an introducer tool is used. When correctly positioned, the PLMA isolates the glottis from the upper esophagus with possible implications for airway protection.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A multicenter study comparing the ProSeal and Classic laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized, nonparalyzed patients.

              The laryngeal mask airway ProSeal (PLMA), a new laryngeal mask device, was compared with the laryngeal mask airway Classic (LMA) with respect to: (1) insertion success rates and times; (2) efficacy of seal; (3) fiberoptically determined anatomic position; (4) orogastric tube insertion success rates and times; (5) total intraoperative complications; and (6) postoperative sore throat in nonparalyzed adult patients undergoing general anesthesia, hypothesizing that these would be different. Three hundred eighty-four nonparalyzed anesthetized adult patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II) were randomly allocated to the PLMA or LMA for airway management. In addition, 50% of patients were randomized for orogastric tube placement. Unblinded observers collected intraoperative data, and blinded observers collected postoperative data. First-attempt insertion success rates (91 vs. 82%, P = 0.015) were higher for the LMA, but after three attempts success rates were similar (LMA, 100%; PLMA, 98%). Less time was required to achieve an effective airway with the LMA (31 +/- 30 vs. 41 +/- 49 s; P = 0.02). The PLMA formed a more effective seal (27 +/- 7 vs. 22 +/- 6 cm H2O; P < 0.0001). Fiberoptically determined anatomic position was better with the LMA (P < 0.0001). Orogastric tube insertion was more successful after two attempts (88 vs. 55%; P < 0.0001) and quicker (22 +/- 18 vs. 38 +/- 56 s) with the PLMA. During maintenance, the PLMA failed twice (leak, stridor) and the LMA failed once (laryngospasm). Total intraoperative complications were similar for both groups. The incidence of postoperative sore throat was similar. In anesthetized, nonparalyzed patients, the LMA is easier and quicker to insert, but the PLMA forms a better seal and facilitates easier and quicker orogastric tube placement. The incidence of total intraoperative complications and postoperative sore throat are similar.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Indian J Anaesth
                IJA
                Indian Journal of Anaesthesia
                Medknow Publications (India )
                0019-5049
                0976-2817
                August 2009
                : 53
                : 4
                : 414-424
                Affiliations
                [1,3 ]Senior Consultant, Department of Anaesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi-110 060
                [2 ]Senior Consultant, Chairperson, Department of Anaesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi-110 060
                [4 ]Emeritus Consultant, Chairperson, Department of Anaesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi-110 060
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: Bimla Sharma, Department of Anaesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi-110 060, INDIA, Email: bimsharma@ 123456rediffmail.com
                Article
                IJA-53-414
                2894503
                20640203
                ba3d312f-1ce8-4652-aeee-99afd823a7cc
                © Indian Journal of Anaesthesia

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 13 July 2009
                Categories
                Special Article

                Anesthesiology & Pain management
                airway management,equipment,troubleshooting,proseal laryngeal mask airway,classic laryngeal mask airway

                Comments

                Comment on this article