Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Cuff Volume (cuff + volume)
Selected AbstractsCuff volume and size selection with the laryngeal maskANAESTHESIA, Issue 12 2000T. Asai First page of article [source] Cuff compliance of pediatric and adult cuffed tracheal tubes: an experimental studyPEDIATRIC ANESTHESIA, Issue 8 2004J.-M. Devys MD Summary Background :,Tracheal mucosal damage related to tracheal intubation has been widely described in pediatric and adult patients. High volume,low pressure cuffs (HVLPC) are being advertised as safe to avoid this particularly unpleasant complication. Compliances of these supposed pediatric and adult HVLPC are not mentioned by manufacturers and still remain unknown. Methods :,The compliance of HVLPC was measured in vitro and defined as the straight portion of the pressure,volume curve. Cuff pressure was measured after incremental 0.1 ml filling volumes of air for sizes 3.0,8.0 of internal diameter of RüschTM and MallinckrodtTM tracheal tubes. Compliances were assessed in air and in a rigid tube. The filling volume to achieve a 25-mmHg intracuff pressure was also measured. Results :,In air, each 0.1 ml step almost linearly increased cuff pressure by 1 mmHg (size 8.0) to 9 mmHg (size 3). In air, the volume needed to maintain a cuff pressure < 25 mmHg was small for sizes 3,5.5 (0.35,2 ml). The 25 mmHg inflated cuff volume and compliance were decreased within a rigid tube, especially for adult sizes. In a rigid tube simulating a trachea, the compliances of almost every RüschTM tracheal tube were statistically higher than those of the MallinckrodtTM. Conclusion :,We conclude that the tested tracheal tube cuffs have low compliance and cannot be defined as high volume,low pressure. [source] The Laryngeal Mask Airway SupremeTM, a single use laryngeal mask airway with an oesophageal vent.ANAESTHESIA, Issue 1 2009A randomised, anaesthetised patients, cross-over study with the Laryngeal Mask Airway ProSealTM in paralysed Summary The LMA SupremeTM is a new extraglottic airway device which brings together features of the LMA ProSealTM, FastrachTM and UniqueTM. We test the hypothesis that ease of insertion, oropharyngeal leak pressure, fibreoptic position and ease of gastric tube placement differ between the LMA ProSealTM and the LMA SupremeTM in paralysed anesthetised patients. Ninety-three females aged 19,71 years were studied. Both devices were inserted into each patient in random order. Two attempts were allowed. Digital insertion was used for the first attempt and guided insertion for the second attempt. Oropharyngeal leak pressure and fibreoptic position were determined during cuff inflation from 0 to 40 ml in 10 ml increments. Gastric tube insertion was attempted if there was no gas leak from the drain tube. First attempt and overall insertion success were similar (LMA ProSealTM, 92% and 100%; LMA SupremeTM 95% and 100%). Guided insertion was always successful following failed digital insertion. Oropharyngeal leak pressure was 4,8 ml higher for the LMA ProSealTM over the inflation range (p < 0.001). Intracuff pressure was 16,35 cm higher for the LMA ProSealTM when the cuff volume was 20,40 ml (p < 0.001). There was an increase in oropharyngeal leak pressure with increasing cuff volume from 10 to 30 ml for both devices, but no change from 0 to 10 ml and 30,40 ml. There were no differences in the fibreoptic position of the airway or drain tube. The first attempt and overall insertion success for the gastric tube was similar (LMA ProSealTM 91% and 100%; LMA SupremeTM 92% and 100%). We conclude that ease of insertion, gastric tube placement and fibreoptic position are similar for the LMA ProSealTM and LMA SupremeTM in paralysed, anaesthetised females, but oropharyngeal leak pressure and intracuff pressure are higher for the LMA ProSealTM. [source] | ||||||||||