Indian Journal of Anaesthesia  
About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Past Issues | Instructions
Home | Login  | Users Online: 4338  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size    


CLINICAL INVESTIGATION
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 56  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 255-258

Validation of the unassisted, gum-elastic bougie-guided, laryngeal mask airway-ProSeal™ placement technique in anaesthetized patients


1 Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA
2 Department of Anesthesiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA

Correspondence Address:
Richard E Galgon
Department of Anesthesiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, 600 Highland Avenue, B6/319, Madison, WI 53792 3272
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0019-5049.98771

Rights and Permissions

Aims: The laryngeal mask airway-ProSeal™ can be inserted digitally, by introducer tool, or by railroading it over a bougie placed first in the patient's oesophagus, which is highly successful, but as originally described, requires an assistant. An unassisted bougie-guided placement technique has also been described, but no data on its effectiveness have been reported. Methods: We reviewed data collected during a randomized, controlled trial comparing the air-Q® Intubating Laryngeal Airway and LMA-Proseal™, in which all LMA-Proseal™ devices were inserted using the unassisted (one-operator), bougie-guided placement technique. Results: Forty-eight devices were placed. All devices were placed successfully. Successful placement was achieved in 47 (98%) patients on first attempt and in one (2%) patient on the third attempt. Mean (SD) time required for insertion establishing ventilation was 28 (11) s. Mean (SD) airway seal pressure was 30 (6) cmH 2 O. Gross blood was found on four (8%) devices upon removal, but no oropharyngeal injuries were noted on oral exam in the recovery unit prior to discharge. The most common complaints in recovery and 24 h post-operatively were sore throat [discharge: mild = 18/48 (38%); 24 h: mild = 9/38 (19%), moderate = 1/38 (3%)] and pain on swallowing [discharge: mild = 7/48 (15%); 24 h: mild = 2/38 (6%)]. Conclusions: Our data confirm that in experienced hands, bougie-guided placement of the LMA-Proseal™ without the aid of an assistant can be accomplished quickly and successfully without affecting the expected clinical performance of the device.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1832    
    Printed74    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded417    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal