• Users Online: 1843
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

Year : 2009  |  Volume : 53  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 414-424 Table of Contents     

Troubleshooting ProSeal LMA

1 Senior Consultant, Department of Anaesthesiology, Pain and PerioperativeMedicine, Sir Ganga RamHospital,Old Rajinder Nagar,New Delhi-110 060, India
2 Senior Consultant, Chairperson, Department of Anaesthesiology, Pain and PerioperativeMedicine, Sir Ganga RamHospital,Old Rajinder Nagar,New Delhi-110 060, India
3 Emeritus Consultant, Department of Anaesthesiology, Pain and PerioperativeMedicine, Sir Ganga RamHospital,Old Rajinder Nagar,New Delhi-110 060, India

Date of Web Publication3-Mar-2010

Correspondence Address:
Bimla Sharma
Department of Anaesthesiology, Pain and PerioperativeMedicine, Sir Ganga RamHospital, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi-110060
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

PMID: 20640203

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

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 PLMAat tunes 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 (eLMA). 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 placementto assess the ventilatooy 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.

Keywords: Airway management, Equipment, ProSeal laryngeal mask airway, Classic laryngeal mask airway, Troubleshooting

How to cite this article:
Sharma B, Sood J, Sahai C, Kumra V P. Troubleshooting ProSeal LMA. Indian J Anaesth 2009;53:414-24

How to cite this URL:
Sharma B, Sood J, Sahai C, Kumra V P. Troubleshooting ProSeal LMA. Indian J Anaesth [serial online] 2009 [cited 2021 Jul 23];53:414-24. Available from: https://www.ijaweb.org/text.asp?2009/53/4/414/60312

   Introduction Top

The ProSeal latyngealmask airway (PLMA) is the most complex and advanced version among all the laryngeal mask airways (LMAs). [1],[2] Some of the prob­lems with its use are unique, such as oesophageal aspi­ration of air, gastric distension and airway obstruction which can occur even when the PLMA is correctly placed with a proper insertion technique [3],[4],[5] .The other problems encountered are akin to the classic laryngeal mask airway (cLMA), with varying degrees of fre­quency and intensity. As a routine after insertion and inflation of the PLMA cuffto 60 cm H2O, the correct placement of the device is confirmed by several obser­vations and certain specific tests designated to assess PLMA positioning and evaluate the ventilatooy and drain tube functions of the mask. These diagnostic tests are simple and quickto perform and the first five of the following are more popular.

  1. Visual assessment of depth of insertion
  2. Unobstructed inspiratory and expiratoty flow
  3. Suprastemal notch tap test
  4. Gel displacementtest
  5. Passage of gastric tube/ polyvinyl chloride (PVC) catheter through drain tube
  6. Soap bubble test
  7. Thread test
  8. Self-inflating bulb technique
  9. Trachlight TM test
  10. Maximum minute ventilation (MMV) test

After confirming correct positioning, the PLMA is properly secured to avoid dislodgement as its cuff is bulkier than that of the cLMA.

1. Visual assessment of depth of insertion

Assess for adequate depth of insertion by exam­ining the relation of the integral biteb lockto the inci­sors. Ideally the biteb lock lies between the teeth but protrudes in casethePLMA is inadequately inserted. Stix and 0' Connorin a study of 274 achults, found that when the PmS & LMA was correctly positioned, the midway point of the bite block was proximal to the incisors in 78% ofwomen and 92% ofmen.APLMA with its bite block lying entirely outside the mouth is almost unquestionably malpositioned [6]

2. Unobstructed insp iratory and expiratory flow

This is assessed by manually ventilating the pa­tient, observing chest movements,capnography, expired tidal volume (V T ) of > 8m11kg, and evaluating the compliance by feel of the bag The reported incidence ofairway obstmction with PLMA has been found to vary from 2-10%. [7],[8] . Increased resistance is suspected with partial obstruction resulting from infolding of the PLMA aifl or downfolding of epiglottis. [3] ThePLMA, with its large drain tube and cull,, may produce respira­tory obstuction by displacing the crieoid cartilage an­teriorly the - eby exerting directpressure on the arytenoid bodies and muscular processes. [9]

3. Sup rastemal notch tap test or Brimacombe bounce

The suprasternal notch tap test or the "Brimacombe bounce" confirms the location of the PLMA tip in the oesophagus behind the crieoid carti­lage. The test was first described by 0' Connoretal in 2002. [10] It involve stapping the suprasternalnotch or crieoid cartilage, and observing simultaneous movement of a column of lubricant, cra soap bubble mentrane at the proximalend of the draintube Both the struc­tures lie in close proximity to the hypopharynx, where the correctly placed distal cuff sits The drain tube must b e patent for the test to be positive The test works by cuff compressiar causing drain tube compression within the draintube,which intum moves the habricantorscep bubble. 0' Connoretal [10] rep orted a low false-nega­tiverate for the suprastenal notch tap test in 50 adults, butfalse positives and negatives can occur. False pesi­tives can occur if the last 1-2 cm of the drain tube is folded over but some of the drain tube is still p atent within the distal cuff [11] .False negatives can occur if the oesophagus is open, since this can weaken the pres­sure wave.

4. Gel Displacement Test

Water-soluble gel (0.5-1 ml) isp laced at the proxi­mal end of the drain tube so that it forms a column of about 2-3 cm. Minimal movement or gentle up and down movements indicates anormalposition. How­ever, gelej action with gentle positivepressure ventila­tion (PPV), indicates a leak from the draintube, signi­fying improper seal of device with the hypopharynx [Figure 1]. Thus, when p ositive, the test indicates airway leak thourgh the drain tube [1],[2] .

5. Passage of gastric tube! PVC catheterthrough drain tube toverify the patency of drain tube

The posterior folding of the mask tip is ruled out by the successful passage of a gastrictube or a PVC catheter through the drain tube [1],[2],[12] .

6. Soap Bubble Test

In this test, soap bubble solution is placed over the tip of the drain babe and following observations may be made. When the tip of the PLMA is in the laryn­gopharynx, soap bubble solution column bubbles or the soap membrane bursts during positive pressure ventilation. When the PLMA tip enters the glottis, the tracheobronchial tree communicates directly to the drain tube. The drain tube transmits the airway pressures unless it is obstructed. The PLMA insertion into the glottis is diagnosed by watching either the fonnation of a spontaneous bubble which is blown away from drain tube port orthe soap membrane oscillations seen with cardiac rhythm of the patient. [13],[14] .

7. Thread test

A gauze thread or small piece of cotton held over the proximal end of a leaking drain tube can also be used to detect air leak from the drain tube. [13]

8. Self-inflating bulb technique

This technique has been used forverification of proper placement of the oesophageal tracheal combitube®. [15] Aself-inflating bagis attached to the drain tube, the bulb injects easily and then remains col­lapsed with normal positioning of the PLMA. How­ever; during glottis insertion, the self-inflating bulb in­jects easily and then re-inflates. [16]

9. Trachlight TM

The Trachlight TM helps in quickly distinguishing glottis from oesophageal location of the tip of the PLMA mask. Trachlight TM (Laerdal Medical, Wappingers Falls, NY, USA) after removing its stylet is passed through the drain tube just as for blind endotracheal intubation. [16] This is a simple and reliable means of de­tecting a PLMA tip fold over. [17] Adull glow in the ante­rior neck with passage of the Trachligh TM wand be­yond the drain tube tip indicates correct alignment of the PLMAwith the upper esophageal sphincter.

10. Maximum Minute Volume Ventilation (MMV)

The MMV test consists of manually hyperventilating an anaesthetized and paralyzed patient with a PLMA for 15 seconds and extrapolating the to­tal exhaled volume to one minute which can be graded as follows.

Basal value 5-7 L/min

Critical value 6-12L/min, threshold for removal of PLMA

Mean value 26-29 L/min

The testis easy to perform and can be completed with equipment that is readily accessible to almost ev­ery anaesthesiologist.

Anaesthesiologists should be alerted to the po­tential for significant airway obstruction in any patient with a MMV less than 12 Llmin. It is advisable tore­move the PLMA and use an alternative device before the initiation of surgery. [9] In this scenario, one should not have a false sense of security due to the normal oxygen saturation as the latter does not guarantee the satisfactory elimination of CO 2 . [18] However, the deci­sion to remove the PLMAshould be based depending on the patient's physical status, nature, site and dura­tion of surgery.

Trouble Shooting

Problems related to the PLMA might occur dur­ing: i) insertion of the device ii)maintenance/ emergence phases of anaesthesia iii) recovery phase; in the post anaesthesia care unit or in the ward. Most of the prob­lems are detected in the perioperative period but some airway morbidity and nerve injuries might continue even afterthe patient has been discharged from the hospital Various tools required forthe purpose of trouble shoot­ing are the PLMA its elf with its cuff, drain tube and bite block, pressure gauge to monitor the oropharyngeal seal pressure, cuff pressure monitor, cotton, gauze thread, water soluble gel, and soap solution. Availabil­ity ofrespiratory module and fiberoptic scope can be very helpful in diagnosis and management of various malpositions. Common problems associated with

PLMAuse are:

I. Functional failure

This may result from several factors. The etiology could vary from failure to negotiate the cuffthrough the oral cavity, various malpositions to mechanical and dy­namic causes contributing to airway obstruction inspite of a correctly placed device. [19]

A. Device Insertion failure

The first-tine and overall insertion failure rate is 14% and 1% respectively. [19] This phase may be asso­ciated with problems such as difficulty in insertion due to the following reasons

(i) Disproportionate oral aperture

Small oral aperture, inability to open mouth fully such as TM joint ankylosis, inappropriate size of the mask and mask not properly deflated before attempt­ing insertion

(ii) Small oral cavity, small pharynx

(iii) Resistance encountered at posteriorpharyngeal wall during insertion

(iv) Short neck

(v) Light plane of anaesthesia such as coughing, gag­ging, retching, stridor, hiccup, or biting of device.


Inability to negotiate the mask through oral aperture

Corrective measures [1],[2],[12] ,[19] ,[20] ,[21]

  1. Proper selection of mask
  2. Lateral approach where the cuff enters the orophar­ynx from the side of the hard palate.
  3. Openingthe patient's mouth with a laryngoscope followed by insertion of the device
  4. Gum elastic bougie /frberoptic insertion, PVC / gastric tube as stents to stiffen the drain tube [12]
  5. Deepening level of anaesthesia
  6. Jaw thrust

B. Gastric tube insertion failure and gastric insufflation

The failure rate for gastric tube insertion is 4%. The most common causes of failure of gastric tube placement are: [19]

  1. Inadequate lubrication
  2. Selection of unproper size
  3. Posteriorfolding of the mask
  4. Cooled gastric tube

The failure rate for prevention of gastric insuffla­tion during PPV is 0.1% which is similar to the inci­dence seen with thetrachealtube. [19]

C. Dislodgement with loss of airway during maintenance phase

'Ihe PLMA gets dislodged resulting in loss of air­way duringthe maintenance phase dueto lightplane of anaesthesia, improper fixation and changes in position e.g. extreme head down position during gynaecologic surgery and laparoscopic procedures. This can be avoided by proper fixation of the device. In the event of intraoperative displacement of the device, a gastric tube left in situ may be very helpful reinsertion of the device by simply railroadingthe drain tube over the gastric tube. [23]

D. Malposition

One of the many advantages of PLMA over other LMAfamilymembers isthat its malposition can be di­agnosed and managed. [20],[21] Slight malrotation is more common with the PLMA as compared to the cLMA probably because of residual rotation in the sagittalplane or distortion of glottic geometry. [24] Severalmalpositions havebeen described and the reported incidence is 5­15% at the first attempt. [19,[20],[21] The instruction manual describes three malpositions; [l],[2] (i) insufficient insertion depth, (ii) PLMA insertion into the glottis, (iii) PLMA tip folded backwards behind the bowl against the pos­terior pharyngealwall.

Presently six malpositions (with approximate in­cidence) have been described. [25],[26],[27]

  1. Distal cuffin laryngopharynx (7%) [2]
  2. Distal cuff in glottic inlet (3-6%) [2],[16]
  3. Distalcufffolded over (3.4%) [27]
  4. Severe epiglottis downfolding(<0.5%) [7]
  5. Supraglottic and glottis compression (0.4%) [5]
  6. Infolding of cuff (0.6%) [9]

1. Distal cuff in laryngopharynx

When the PLMA is not inserted to the desired depth, the distalcuff sits in the laryngopharaynx result­ing in protrusion of the bite block. [2],[6],[19],[21]


  1. Bite block protruding
  2. Soap bubbletest positive

Corrective measure

Further pushing in of the PLMA without colliding with the glottis inlet .[19],[21]

2. Distal cuff in glotticinlet/PLMAinsertion into the glottis

When the PLMA takes an anterior path during insertion, the distal cuff collides with the glottis inlet and either remains there or falls back in the laryngophar­ynx. PLMA entry into the glottis is notuncommondur­inginsertion attempts because of the bulky and flexible mask tip. When the PLMA enters the glottis then the drain tube acts as an extension of the tracheobronchial tree, airway pressures are therefore transmittedthrough the drain tube and notthe airwaytube. [2],[16]


  1. Thread test
  2. Gel displacement
  3. Soap bubble test
  4. Self-inflating bulb technique
  5. Trachlight™

Corrective measures

Correction usually requires reins ertion using a lat­real approach, of the gum elastic bougie (GEB) tech­nique. In majority of cases, the reinsertion of the mask is to a noticeably increaseddepth of insertion. Location of the PLMA tip in the oesophagus behind the cricoid cartilage can be confined using the "suprasternalnotch tap test." [10] To distinguish between inadequate depth of insertion and glottis imp action, the PLMA can be pushed further inwards: the former will usually be cor­rected while the latter made worse, with increased air­way obstruction or airway protective reflex activation. [19] O'Connor and Stix have suggested that these malpositions can be distinguished using the soap bubble test. [13],[14]

3. Distal cuff folded over

The advancing distal cuff of the PLMA gets folded [Figure 2] when it impacts against the posterior oropha­ryngealwall thereby obliterating the lumen of the drain tube. [19],[20] Thus the distal cuff folds up beneath the ad­vancing cuffuntilthe unfolded proximal cuff is redirected inferiorly into the laryngopharynx by the build up of the folded cuff in the oropharynx. The folded distal cuff cannot easily unfold as it gets wedged into the laryn­gopharynx. Folding over has also been reported with the cLMA, [28] but is probably more common with the PLMA due to its soft backplate. [26] This malposition may occur with both finger / introducerinsertion and be as­sociated with a better seal and highermucosal pres­sures than the correctly placed PLMA.

Brimacombe et al, in a study of 95 patients with the fold over malpositions, found that in 92% resistance was encountered at the back of the mouth, in 83% the bite blockpmtruded from the mouth, and in 98% ven­tilation was unaffected and the sealwas normal. [27] The main danger of unrecognised fold over phenomenon is that it predisposes the patient to gastric insufflation, re­gurgitation and pulmonary aspiration as ventilation is unhindered due to easily achieved high airway pres­sures. [19] Thepatency of the draintube must be assessed in allpatients with the PLMA to exclude this malposi­tion. In situations where passage of a gastric tube is not required, the patency can be tested by non-invasively passing the gastric tube or a PVC suction catheter only till the end of the drain tube.


  1. Resistance encountered at the back of the mouth
  2. Bite block lying outside
  3. Inability to pass a gastric tube/PVC catheterth mugh the drain tube
  4. Unaffected ventilation and sealpressure

Corrective measures [19],[20],[21]

  1. Reinsertion using a lateral approach
  2. Reinsertion with the drain tube stiffened using a stylet
  3. Guided insertion with a gum elastic bougie (GEB)
  4. Digital correction by sweepinga fingerbehind the cuff

Of these, digital correction app ears to be the least effective. Folding over cannot occur with the GEB in­sertion and gastric tube guided techniques.

4. Severe epiglottic downfolding

A well known cause of mechanical airway ob­struction is severe epiglottis downfolding which occurs when the epiglottis is dragged inferiorly by the cuff and completely covers the laryngeal inlet [Figure 3]. Itis diag­nosed when the anterior surface of the epiglottis is vis­ible from the airway tube on fiberscope examination. [7]

Although a degree of downfolding of epiglottis has been reported in 17% of cases, [29] critical airway obstruction seldom occurs from a downfolded epiglottis due to the design feature as the drain tube always suspends the epiglottis offthe floor of the bowl. However, with cuff infolding (thetwo outside cuffs meet in the midline and the epiglottis cannot enter the bowl), a downfolded epiglottis becomes a riskfactor for airway obstruction because itis nowforced directly onthe arytenoids. [9] It may occur as aresult ofpre-insertion inflation of cuff, compression of pharynx and enlarged or floppy epig­lottis.


  1. High airway pressures
  2. Airway obstruction
  3. MMV test
  4. Fiberopatic examination

Corrective measures [19],[20],[21]

  1. Reinsertion with the head/neckin a more extreme sniffing position
  2. Jaw thrust
  3. Laryngoscope guided placement of PLMA

5. Sup raglottic and Glottis Compression

Glottis compression occurs when the glottis inlet is mechanically compressed by the distal cuff reducing the tension of the vocal cords. [5] It is more likely to oc­cur with a small pharynx, over inflated cuff and when the distal cuff is pressed into the hypophatynx with ex­tra force. [19] Compression of supraglottic and glottic structures may occasionally contribute to significant upper airway obstruction with a correctly placed tip of the cuff lying behind the cricoid cartilage. [9]


  1. High airway pressures
  2. Airway obstruction
  3. MMV test

Corrective measures [5],[20],[21]

Reinsertion does not usually solve the problem.

  1. Air should be withdrawn from the cuff
  2. Anteroposterior diameter of the pharynx increased by adopting the sniffing position

6. Cuff infolding

Cuffinfolding refers to inward rotation of the large cuffs in front of the bowl so that they contact each other in the midline and obstruct gas flow [Figure 4]. Itis rela­tively uncommon and Stix reported 2 cases of cuff in­folding out of 317 cases. [9],[20] It is clinically indistinguish­able from severe downfolding of epiglottis and both conditions may coexist at times. There is increased risk of cuff infolding with PLMA due to its deeper bowl and a more compliant cuff than that of the cLMA.Z [3]


  1. High airway pressures
  2. Airway obstruction
  3. MMV test
  4. Fiberoptic examination

Corrective measures [20],[21]

  1. Sniffing position which increases the anteroposte­rior diameter of the pharynx
  2. Applying jawthrust
  3. Consider insertion of one size smaller LMA­-ProSeal TM
  4. Ensure correct cuff inflation pressures
  5. Air withdrawal from the cuff may be helpful

[Table 1] shows Troubleshooting to various prob­lems, causes, the required confirmatory test and their solutions.

II. Regurgitation and aspiration Regurgitation of gastric contents may result in Supracuff soiling of the mask and pulmonary aspiration with catastrophic results. [19],[29] This may be precipitated by activation of protective reflexes due to lightplane of anaesthesia as greater depth of anaesthesia is required for insertion of PLMA as compared to cLMA. [30]


  1. Fluid seen in the airway /drain tube
  2. Intraoral examination
  3. Fiberoptic examination of the tracheobronchial tree
  4. Sudden bronchospasm
  5. Haemodynamic instability
  6. Supracuff soiling of the maskon removal

Management of Regurgitation[ 31]

  1. Leave the PLMAin situ
  2. Suction of the gastric tube and the drain tube
  3. Head clown position and 100% oxygen should be administered
  4. Fib eroptic evaluation and suction
  5. Consider deepening level of anaesthesia and intubation of the patient fiberoptically via the PLMA

III. Airway morbidity and Trauma

Airway morbidity and trauma may result from dif­ficulty and multiple attempts at insertion, prolonged sur­gery without intracuffmonitoring and unpropersize se­lection of the PLMA. [19]


  1. Coughing, gagging, retching stridor, hiccup, orbit­ing
  2. Audible noise, or as subtle increases in airway pres­sure orreductions in tidal volume
  3. Laryngospasm, bronchospasm, regurgitation, and aspiration

Management [19,[31]

  1. Eliminating the source of stimulation
  2. Deepening anaesthesia
  3. Head down position and 100% oxygen should be administered
  4. Bronchodilators or high concentration of volatileagent

Many problems can be solved by proper patient and procedure selection, diagnosis and management of malpositions. Strategies to facilitate insertion by lat­eral/guided ins ertion techniques and maintaining ad­equate plane ofanaesthesia may be helpful in improv­ing first time and overall insertion success rates, cor­recting malpositions, overcoming difficult airway sce­narios and prevention of regurgitation and pulmonary aspiration. Proper fixation of the device and monitor­ing cuff pressure intraop eratively especially during ni­trous oxide based anaesthesia may bring down the in­cidence of airway morbidity.

   References Top

1.LMA-Pro Seal Instruction Manual. San Diego: LMA NorthAmerica, 2001.  Back to cited text no. 1      
2.Brain AIJ, Verghese C, Strube PJ. The LMA `ProSeal'­a laryngeal mask with an oesophageal vent. Br JAnaesth 2000;84:650-4.  Back to cited text no. 2      
3.Stix MS, Rodriguez-Sallaberry FE, Cameron EM, et al. Esophageal aspiration of air through the chain tube of the ProSeal laryngeal mask AnesthAnalg 2001; 93:1354-7.  Back to cited text no. 3      
4.O' Connor CJ Jr,Davies SR, StixMS, Dolan RW Gastric distention in a spontaneously ventilating patient with a Pro Seal laryngeal mask airway. Anesth Analg 2002; 94:1650-8.  Back to cited text no. 4      
5.Brim acombe J, Richardson C, Kelley C, Donald S. Me­chanical closure of the vocal cords with the laryngeal m ask airway Pro SealTM. Br JAnaesth 2002; 88: 296-7.  Back to cited text no. 5      
6.StixMS,O'ConnorCJJr.Depth ofinsertionoftheProSeal TM laryngeal maskainway. Br JAnaesth2003; 90: 235-7.  Back to cited text no. 6      
7.Brim acombe J, Kelley C, Fullekrug B, et al. Amulticenter study comparing the Pro Seal with the Classic laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized, nonparalyzed patients. Anesthesiology 2002; 96: 28 9-95.  Back to cited text no. 7      
8.Kelley C,Brimacombe J, KleinsasserA,Brimacombe L. The laryngeal mask airway ProSeal TM as a temporary ventilatory device in grossly and morbidly obese pa­tients before laryngoscope-guided tracheal incubation. AnesthAnalg 2002; 94: 737-40  Back to cited text no. 8      
9.Stix MS, O'Connor CJ. Maximum Minute Ventilation Test for the Pro Seal TM Laryngeal Mask Airway. Anesth Analg 2002; 95 : 1782-7.  Back to cited text no. 9      
10.O'Connor CJJr, Borromeo CJ, StixMS. Assessing ProSeal laryngeal mask positioning: the suprasternal notch test. AnesthAnalg2002; 94: 1374-5.  Back to cited text no. 10      
11.Brimacombe J, Kelley C, BerryA, Mitchell S. Assessing ProSeal laryngeal mask positioning: the suprasternal notch test AnesthAnalg 2002;94:1375.  Back to cited text no. 11      
12.Sharma B, Sood J, Sahai C, Kumra VP. Efficacy and Safety Performance of Pro Seal TM Laryngeal Mask Air­wayinLaparoscopic Surgery. Experience of 1000 cases. LTA2008;52: 288-96.  Back to cited text no. 12      
13.O'Connor CJ Jr, Davies SR, Stix MS. "Soap bubbles" and "gauze thread" drain tube tests. Anesth Analg 2001; 93:1082.  Back to cited text no. 13      
14.O' Connor CJ Jr, Stix MS. Place the bubble solutionwith your fingertip. AnesthAnalg 2002; 94: 763-4.  Back to cited text no. 14      
15.Wafai Y Salem MR, Baraka A, Joseph NJ, Czinn EA, Paulissian R. Effectiveness of the self-inflating bulb for verification of proper placement of the esophageal tracheal Combitube®. AnesthAnalg 1995; 80: 122-6.  Back to cited text no. 15      
16.Cornelius J. O'Connor, Jr, MD, Michael S. Stix, MD PhD andDennis R. Valade. Glottic insertion ofthe Pro Seal TM LMA occurs in 6% of cases: a review of 627 patients. Can JAnesth2005; 52: 199-204.  Back to cited text no. 16      
17.Christodoulou C. ProSeal laryngeal mask foldover de­tection. AnesthAnalg 2004; 99: 312.  Back to cited text no. 17      
18.Lumb AB. Nunn's applied respiratory physiology. 5th ed. Oxford, UK: Butterworth Heinemann, 2000:222-48.  Back to cited text no. 18      
19.Brimacombe JR. ProSeal LMA for ventilation and air­way protection. In: Brimacombe JR, ed. Laryngeal Mask Anesthesia Principles and Practice. Philadelphia, USA: WB Saunders,2005: 505-37.  Back to cited text no. 19      
20.Brimacombe J, Kelley C. AProposed algorithm for the management of airway obstruction with the ProSeal laryngeal maskairway. AnesthAnalg 2005; 100: 289-301  Back to cited text no. 20      
21.http://www.vitaid.com/canada/lm a/resource/LMA­Proseal-troubleshootingguide.pdfa  Back to cited text no. 21      
22.Wardle D. Failed gastric tube insertion in the LMA­Pro Seal. Anaesthesia 2004; 59:827-8.  Back to cited text no. 22      
23.Brimacombe J, Judd D Vasoba, Tortely K, Baryon E, Branagan H. Gastric tube-guided reinsertion of the ProSeal TM laryngeal mask airway. Anesth Analg 200294:1670.  Back to cited text no. 23      
24.Brim acombe J, Kelley C. Stability of the Pro Seal and stan­dard laryngeal mask airway in different head and neck positions. A randomised crossover study. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2003; 20:65-9.  Back to cited text no. 24      
25.O'Connor CJ, Stix MS. Bubble solution diagnoses ProSeal insertion into the glottis. Anesth Analg 2002; 94:1671-2.  Back to cited text no. 25      
26.Brimacombe J, Kelley C, Berry A. Gastric insufflation with the Pro Seal laryngeal mask. Anesth Analg 2001; 92:1614-5.  Back to cited text no. 26      
27.Brim acombe J, Kennaugh S, BerryA, Kelley C. Malposi­tion ofthe ProSeal TM laryngeal mask AnesthAnalg 2002; 94:1367.  Back to cited text no. 27      
28.Nandi PR,NunnJF, CharlesworthCH, Taylor SJ. Radio­logical study of the laryngeal mask. Eur JAnaesthesiol 1991;4:33-9.  Back to cited text no. 28      
29.Brimacombe J, Kelley C. The ProSeal laryngeal mask air­way. A randomized, crossover study with the standard laryngeal mask airway in paralyzed, anesthetized pa­tients. Anesthesiology 2000; 93: 104-9.  Back to cited text no. 29      
30.Kodaka M, Okamoto Y, Koyam a K, et al. Predicted val­ues of propofol EC50 and sevoflurane concentration for insertion of laryngeal mask classic andPro Seal. Br J Anaesth 2003; 92:242-5.  Back to cited text no. 30      
31.Brim acorn be JR. Pro Seal LMA for ventilation and air­ way protection. In: Brimacombe JR, ed. Laryngeal Mask Anesthesia Principles and Practice. Philadelphia, USA: WB Saunders,2005: 241-57.  Back to cited text no. 31      


  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]

  [Table 1]


    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this article
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded792    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal